Appeal 2006-1578
Application 09/520,032
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 20 and
25 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
whole, giving due consideration to the weight of Appellants’ arguments in
the Brief and Reply Brief. See generally, In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings of fact from the references and
conclusions of law based on this substantial evidence as set forth in the
Answer, to which we add the following for emphasis.
Appellants submit with respect to claims 20 and 25, that there is no
motivation for one of ordinary skill in this art to combine Pieper and Rochlis
and modify the production tools of Pieper by using different shaped cavities
as suggested for production tools by Rochlis because the teachings of Pieper
are limited to production tools having consistent or uniform cavities
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007