Appeal 2006-1312
Application 09/955,604
as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have
reasonably been expected to draw therefrom, see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968), presuming skill on
the part of this person. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774
(Fed. Cir. 1985). We found above that the teachings of Rochlis with respect
to Fig. 21 thereof would have disclosed to this person a non-random,
consistent and uniform array of different geometrically shaped cavities.
Thus, we determine that the Examiner has established that one of
ordinary skill in this art would have combined Pieper and Rochlis as applied
on the basis the disclosures therein to address the matter of production tools
for preparing abrasive articles wherein the cavities in the production tool are
of the same or different geometric shapes, thus arriving at the claimed
production tools encompassed by claims 30 and 138, including all of the
limitations thereof arranged as required therein. See generally, In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 985-89, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1334-38 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Indeed,
it is apparent from Rochlis Fig. 21 that the cavities 140, 141, and 142 have
different angles of intersection and when adjacent would satisfy the different
angle of intersection and different dimension limitations in claims 20 and 25,
respectively. With respect to the “pyramidal” geometric shape limitation in
claim 138, Rochlis would have disclosed such shapes as the Examiner points
out, and indeed, Appellants have not argued otherwise.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Pieper, Rochlis, Larson, and Bloecher with
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007