Appeal 2007-1898
Application 10/360,622
Therefore we AFFIRM all grounds of rejection in this appeal essentially for
the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Tye discloses a closed cell foamed neoprene rubber perforated
strip 60 with closely spaced holes 61 formed in the compressing
direction (Tye, Fig. 5; col. 7, ll. 49-61; Answer 3);
(2) JP ‘558 discloses a polyurethane or rubber foam polishing pad
with a plurality of holes made by needle punching, where the holes
are exemplified as being about 0.5 mm in diameter (Abstract; ¶¶
[0009] and [0011]; Answer 4);
(3) EP ‘500 discloses a polyurethane and rubber foam polishing pad
with closed cell structure for higher toughness and hardness
(Abstract; ¶¶ [0001], [0007], [0011], [0014], and [0066]; Answer
4); and
(4) Brandolini discloses a foam plank laminate comprising at least
two expanded open or closed cell foam sheets, where the foam
plank laminate is impermeable but has an inner sheet that can be
completely perforated by needles, with the diameter and spacing
of the holes as desired (Abstract; col. 1, ll. 9-12; col. 3, ll. 5-6; col.
3, ll. 49-57; col. 5, ll. 21-46; col. 6, ll. 61-63; col. 7, ll. 4-11; and
col. 8, ll. 47-52; Answer 5-6).
“Appellants have chosen to describe their invention in terms of certain
physical characteristics of the roughened substrate surface. They couch their
claims in terms of the abraded surface being rough on a microscale,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013