Appeal 2006-1578
Application 09/520,032
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. 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 and 22 a production tool
which is a flat sheet having adjacent pairs of cavities that have different
geometric shapes and dimensions. Rochlis would have taught that such a
production tool can also be “arcuate so as to produce a cylindrical or drum-
like mold.” The geometrically different cavities are in non-random, uniform
and consistent arrays as illustrated, wherein the cavities 140 and 142 have
different angles of intersection and can be adjacent when the sections shown
in Fig. 21 are aligned next to each other. Rochlis, col. 13, ll. 6-61.
Contrary to Appellants’ contentions based on the combined teachings
of teachings of Pieper and Rochlis, we find substantial evidence in such
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007