Appeal 2006-2351
Application 10/645,493
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER MOLNAR I IN VIEW OF HORIE
DEPENDENT CLAIM 24
Claim 24 depends on independent claim 17 and further states that “the
amount of solid lubricant particles is about 0.5 to about 30% by weight”
(claim 24).
For dependent claim 24, Appellant further argues that Molnar I and
Horie are not combinable since Horie “relates to glass grinding sheets from
powdery metal compositions and not from polymer compositions” (Br. 8).
We cannot agree with Appellant’s argument.
Molnar I discloses a finishing element, which may be constructed of a
porous compressible material, for finishing (i.e., grinding) a workpiece such
as a glass television faceplate (Molnar I, col. 16, ll. 26-29, col. 22, ll. 51-52).
Molnar I further discloses that supplying an effective amount of lubricant
reduces the coefficient of friction between the workpiece surface and the
finishing element finishing surface such that unwanted surface damage is
reduced (Molnar I, col. 23, ll. 52-55). Molnar I discloses adding solid
lubricant to the finishing element (Molnar I, col. 26, ll. 52-67; col. 30, ll. 1-
4).
Horie discloses a grinding sheet for grinding glass lenses (Horie, col.
1, ll. 11-15). Horie further discloses adding solid lubricant in an amount of
1-5% by weight to the grinding sheet to prevent scratches on the glass during
grinding (Horie, col. 3, ll. 60-65; claim 8).
From the above disclosures, Molnar I and Horie are combinable
because one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Horie’s
disclosure to determine a desirable amount of lubricant to add to Molnar I’s
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013