Appeal No. 2000-0584
Application No. 08/845,673
1983). The content of the drawings may also be considered in
determining compliance with the written description requirement.
Id.
In the present case, the disclosure of the application as
originally filed would not reasonably convey to the artisan that
the appellant had possession at that time of an “annular module”
having a maximum radial thickness of 10 percent of the radial
thickness of the grinding disc as now recited in claim 53, an
“annular module” having a radial thickness of 3 to 10 mm as now
recited in claim 54, a grinding disc having fiber materials
selected from the group consisting of carbon fibers, glass
fibers, asbestos fibers, and “combinations thereof” as now
recited in claim 57, or a plastic disc having heat conducting
materials extending from the outer circumference of the plastic
disc over a maximum range of 20 percent of the radial thickness
of the “grinding disc” as now recited in claim 58.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner:
a) to reject claims 51 through 53 and 60 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by the German reference is affirmed
with respect to claims 51 through 53 and reversed with respect to
claim 60;
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007