Appeal 2006-1578
Application 09/520,032
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 20 and 25, 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 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 “roll” limitation in claim 20, the teachings
that the production tool can be in the form of a roll in Pieper and can be
cylindrical or drum-like in Rochlis with respect to Fig. 21 would have
reasonably suggested such a shape for the production tool to one of ordinary
skill in the art.
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
Appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness
and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims
20, 21, 25 through 28, 33 through 54, 94 through 96, and 98 through 111
would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We summarily affirm the provisional ground of rejection under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting because
Appellants have stated their intention to “appropriately” respond “upon an
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007