Appeal 2007-3147
Application 10/072,435
Claims 2-6, 18-19, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Martin in view of Simons and Pearce (id.).
Appellants contend that Martin fails to disclose configurations or
regions of weakened material that can modify the abrasive sheet so that the
sheet will correspond with different platens (Br. 10-11). Appellants also
contend that Simons fails to disclose a first configuration of sandpaper for
use with a first platen and separating the sandpaper along score lines 4 to
provide the paper with a second configuration corresponding to a second
platen (Br. 11).
Appellants contend that neither Martin, Simons, nor Pearce discloses
or suggests multiple tip configurations of different shapes and sizes, while
Pearce fails to disclose or suggest an abrasive sheet including a tip portion
and second and third segments of weakened material (Br. 15-17; Reply Br.
3).
The Examiner contends that Simons teaches first segments defining
regions of weakened material, where the sheet is adapted to be separated
along the first segment to change the configuration of the body portion
(Answer 3-4).
The Examiner contends that Pearce discloses a plurality of segments
that define regions of weakened material where the sheet is adapted to be
separated along two different segments to correspond with a plurality of
sanding machines (Answer 5-6).
Accordingly, the issue presented from the record in this appeal is as
follows: Does the combination of Martin, Simons, and Pearce disclose or
suggest tip portions that are separable from the body portion as well as body
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013