Appeal 2006-1312
Application 09/955,604
pyramidal” and that Rochlis, Larson and Bloecher do not teach pyramidal
shaped cavities. Appellants submit that while Pieper does teach pyramidal
cavities, for the reasons set forth with respect to both claims 30 and 138, the
combined teachings of all four references do not teach or suggest all of the
limitations of the claims (Br. 11-12).
The plain language of claim 30 specifies a production tool that
comprises at least three groups of cavities, each having a different shape.
The plain language of claim 138, dependent on claim 136, specifies that the
at least three groups of cavities are all pyramidal shaped and have different
base dimensions.
We find that Pieper would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in
this art a production tool for manufacturing an abrasive article which can
have abrasive composites formed in a non-random array of cavities of a
“wide variety of shapes” wherein the cavities of the array have “at least one
specified shape.” Pieper, e.g., col. 2, ll. 1-30, col. 3, l. 61, to col. 4, l. 48,
col. 6, ll. 46-53, col. 7, l. 48, to col. 8, l. 49, to col. 9, l. 23. The production
tool of Pieper can be metal or plastic in the shape of, inter alia, “a sheet, a
coating roll, a sleeve mounted on a coating roll.” Pieper, col. 9, ll. 13-43.
We find that Rochlis would have disclosed to this person a production
mold or tool which can be used to form an abrasive article, wherein the tool
can be flat or cylindrical or drum shaped and the cavities can have different
dimensions including the base dimension. Rochlis, e.g., col. 1, ll. 51-56, col.
2, ll. 26-44, col. 3, ll. 25-35, col. 6, ll. 17-22, col. 7, ll. 67-71, col. 8, ll. 12-
21, col. 9, ll. 72-75, col. 10, ll. 41-51, col. 11, ll. 56-61, col. 12, l. 5, to
col. 13, l. 5, and col. 14, ll. 3-18. Rochlis would have illustrated in Figs. 21
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007