Appeal No. 2005-2098
Application No. 09/810,641
deficiencies noted above in the basic combination of Jöst and Marton. Thus, the
examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be sustained.
However, we reach a contrary conclusion with respect to the rejection of
independent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jöst in view
of Marton. Claim 8 does not recite the “annular zone” and the particular construction of
the abrasive disc with the specificity set forth in claim 1 on appeal. As we noted supra,
we agree with the examiner’s conclusion that the collective teachings of Jöst and
Marton would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellant’s invention to provide the perforations (8) of Jöst in a distribution and size so
as to insure that at least two perforations are in register with each exhaust port (7) of the
support member (5/6) so as to thereby insure unhindered suction of abrasive dust away
from the grinding surface. This combination would result in a sander system like that in
appellant’s claim 8 on appeal and, contrary to appellant’s assertions in the brief (pages
8-9), would clearly provide a circular abrasive disc having a major abrading surface
provided with “an annular zone” having a sufficient plurality of perforations so that
wherein at least two perforations are in register with each exhaust port on the backing
pad or support member (5/6) of Jöst. This claim, unlike claim 1, does not in any way
exclude perforations from the remainder of the abrading disc, i.e., from both a central
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007