Appeal No. 2004-1078
Application No. 09/765,121
expressly notes (col. 6, lines 2-4) that the inner surface (6) of
the abrasive belt (1) is intended to be smooth. As for the
examiner's rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Benedict alone, we find no basis for the examiner's conclusion
of obviousness and further note that the backing loop (5 or 30)
of Benedict is specifically constructed so as to be endless and
seamless, i.e., without ends joined together by a splice. The
examiner's reference to column 20, lines 9-11, of Benedict is of
no avail since that portion of the patent speaks of a possible
"seam" in the internal structure, not a splice. Thus, it follows
that the examiner's rejections of claims 3, 4, 9 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will also not be sustained.
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007