Appeal 2006-1312
Application 09/955,604
24, 30 through 32, 89, 90, 92, 93, 134 through 136, 138 through 143, and
145 through 148 of copending Application 09/955,604.1 (Answer 8-9).
Appellants argue claims 23, 24, 30 through 32, 89, 90, 92, 93, 134
through 136, 138 through 143, and 145 through 148 as a first group and
claims 134, 135, 138, 139, 145, and 146 as a second group with respect to
the first ground of rejection, and generally address the second ground of
rejection (Br. 9, 11 and 12). Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed
claims 30 and 138 as representative of the grounds of rejection and
Appellants’ groupings of claims. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
We affirm.
We refer to the Answer and to the Brief and Reply Brief for a
complete exposition of the positions advanced by the Examiner and
Appellants.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based
thereon find ourselves in agreement with the supported position advanced by
the Examiner that, prima facie, the claimed a production tool for
manufacturing an abrasive article encompassed by appealed claims 30 and
138 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Pieper,
Rochlis, Larson, and Bloecher to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time
the claimed invention was made. Accordingly, since a prima facie case of
obviousness has been established by the Examiner, we again evaluate all of
the evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness based on the record as a
1 We concurrently enter an opinion in related appeal 2006-1578 in
application 09/520,032.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007