Ex Parte Ronay - Page 10

                Appeal 2006-2351                                                                                 
                Application 10/645,493                                                                           
                finishing element to prevent scratches (i.e., unwanted surface damage) on                        
                the glass.                                                                                       
                       Furthermore, Molnar I discloses that lubricants should be provided to                     
                the fluid in the interface between the workpiece surface being finished and                      
                the finishing element finishing surface in an amount of 0.1 to 15% by weight                     
                of the total fluid between the interface (Molnar I, col. 28, ll. 5-15).  Molnar I                
                further discloses independently controlling the amount of lubricant such that                    
                the lubricant may be supplied to the interface from either the slurry or from                    
                the finishing element (Molnar I, col. 28, l. 50 to col. 29, l. 11).  Horie                       
                discloses that the amount of lubricant is such that it is “effective for                         
                preventing formation of scratches on glass” (Horie, col. 3, ll. 56-62).                          
                Therefore, Molnar I and Horie recognize that the amount of lubricant                             
                necessary to achieve proper lubrication at the interface so as prevent damage                    
                to the workpiece is a result-effective variable such that it would have been                     
                obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop workable or even                           
                optimum ranges for such art-recognized, result-effective parameters.  In re                      
                Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir.                                
                1990); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980);                           
                In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).                                   
                       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a)                              
                rejection of argued claim 24 and non-argued claims 25-26 over Molnar I in                        
                view of Horie.                                                                                   







                                                       10                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013