Appeal 2006-1578
Application 09/520,032
throughout, citing, inter alia, Pieper at col. 1, ll. 57-61, 7, ll. 4-15 and 63-68,
col. 7, l. 55, to col. 8, l. 15, col. 8, ll. 15-25, and the Pieper figures (Br. 8;
Reply Br 1-4). Appellants maintain this position even in view of the
Examiner’s contention that Pieper would have taught “that the surface can
have varied shapes ” at col. 7, ll. 4-15, and col. 8, ll. 15-25 (Answer 10;
Reply Br. 2-4). Appellants argue that there is no basis for the proposed
modification of Pieper’s production tool by using cavities of different
dimensions as taught by Rochlis because the motivating advantages that the
Examiner finds in this relationship, citing Answer at 7, are “already
attributed to the uniformity and consistency found in the abrasive articles”
prepared with Pieper’s production tools (Reply Br. 5).
Appellants further submit with respect to claim 20, that Rochlis would
not have taught forming a production tool in the form of a roll as required in
this claim (Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 6-7). Appellants point out that the
production tool illustrated in Rochlis Figs. 21 and 22 “is in the form of a flat
sheet, not a roll” and the reference would not have disclosed adapting it to a
roll, citing Rochlis, col. 13, ll. 29-35 (Br. 10; Reply Br. 6).
The plain language of claim 20 specifies a production tool that
comprises at least a plurality, that is, at least 2, adjacent cavities which differ
in at least one angle of intersection, thus having different geometric shapes.
The production tool is specified as being in the shape of “a roll.” The plain
language of claim 25 specifies a production that comprises at least a plurality
of cavities wherein at least 10% of pairs of adjacent cavities have at least one
difference in any dimension, there being no limitation on the shape of the
production tool.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007