Timothy Van Der Veen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

2020001244 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/062,430 05/27/2011 Timothy Rolf Van Der Veen 738004/09978/P2402US00 3996
148434 7590 10/01/2020
Burr Forman McNair
Husqvarna
Bank of America Plaza
101 South Tryon Street, Suite 2610
Charlotte, NC 28280
EXAMINER
MORGAN, EILEEN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
mcnairip@mcnair.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY ROLF VAN DER VEEN and TOBIAS NILSSON
Appeal 2020-001244
Application 13/062,430
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-001244
Application 13/062,430

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12, 13, 16–18, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30–33,
and 35–41. Final Act. 1, 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a double row abrasive disc. Claim 12,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
12. An abrasive disc comprising:
a plurality of fixing means for mounting detachably
mountable carrier plates, each with abrasive elements, to a
grinding side of the abrasive disc,
each carrier plate having a specific fixing geometry,
the fixing means consisting of a first set of fixing means
disposed at a first predetermined radial distance from the center
and a second set of fixing means disposed at a second
predetermined radial distance from the center, said second
predetermined distance being shorter than the first predetermined
distance, so that the carrier plates will be arranged in two rows,
a first outer row and a second inner row,
wherein each fixing means of the first and second sets of
fixing means includes an elongated groove formed in the
abrasive disc, and extending through an entire thickness of the
abrasive disc,
wherein each elongated groove comprises a first end
facing the outer circumference of the abrasive disc and a second

1 In this Decision, we refer to (1) the Examiner’s Final Office Action dated
March 21, 2019 (“Final Act.”) and Answer dated October 3, 2019 (“Ans.”),
and (2) Appellant’s Appeal Brief dated August 21, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) and
Reply Brief dated December 3, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Husqvarna AB.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001244
Application 13/062,430

3
end opposite the first end and facing the center of the abrasive
disc,
wherein each elongated groove is further defined by a first
sidewall and a second sidewall extending through the entire
thickness of the abrasive disc,
wherein each of the first outer row and the second inner
row has an equal number of elongated grooves disposed
equidistant around the abrasive disc, and
wherein the second end of at least one groove opens up
into an opening at the center at the abrasive disc.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bouvier US 3,517,466 June 30, 1970
Sexton US 5,567,503 Oct. 22, 1996
Bergstrand WO 2007/011289 Al Jan. 25, 2007

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30–33, and 35–41 stand
rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Bergstrand and Bouvier. Final Act. 2.
2. Claim 17 stands rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bergstrand, Bouvier, and Sexton. Final Act. 5.
Appellant seeks our review of these rejections.

Appeal 2020-001244
Application 13/062,430

4
OPINION
Rejection 1: Claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30–33, and 35–41
as Unpatentable over Bergstrand and Bouvier
Appellant argues claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30–33, and 35–
41 as a group. Appeal Br. 4–10. We select independent claim 12 as the
representative claim, and claims 13, 16, 18, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30–33, and 35–41
stand or fall with claim 12. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Bergstrand discloses all of the limitations of
claim 12 except for (1) “the fixing means consisting of a first set of fixing
means disposed at a first predetermined radial distance from the center and a
second set of fixing means disposed at a second predetermined radial
distance from the center,” and (2) “each of the first outer row and the second
inner row [having] an equal number of elongated grooves disposed
equidistant around the abrasive disc.” Final Act. 2. For these two missing
limitations, the Examiner finds that Bouvier teaches two concentric rows of
carrier plates/abrasive elements, wherein the rows are different distances
from the center and each row has the same number of elements. Id. More
specifically, the Examiner finds that Bouvier teaches “a grinding plate 6
having fixing means for detachably fixing grinding members 1,” and “the
grinding members 1 are spaced at two different distances from the center to
form two concentric rows of evenly spaced abrasive elements, wherein the
rows have the same number of elements (8) and the elements in one row are
positioned between elements of the another row.” Id.
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art
to provide the grinding plate/apparatus of [Bergstrand] with two
circular/concentric rows of abrasive elements (along with their
Appeal 2020-001244
Application 13/062,430

5
fixing grooves), as taught by Bouvier, in order to decrease the
size of abrasive elements while increasing abrasive coverage of
plate to provide a more efficient grinding operation and to allow
cost effective and easy replacement of smaller worn out
elements. This arrangement of overlapping abrasive elements
also includes overlapping fixing grooves since the grooves are
same size and spacing as abrasive elements. In addition, two
concentric rows of abrasive elements allows the grinding plate of
Bergstrand to be larger with a greater number of elements in two
rows which would provide more efficient grinding of larger floor
areas. Bergstrand consists of one row. Bouvier teaches multiple
rows. Bergstrand in view of Bouvier would teach one of ordinary
skill in the art to form a disc with two or more concentric rows
and therefore, to form a disc consisting of two rows, such as the
outer two rows of Bouvier, which have equal number of grinding
elements, would be within the level of ordinary skill.
Id. at 3–4. The Examiner further reasons that “[a]s shown by Bouvier, the
different concentric rows are spaced at different amounts from outer row
toward 2nd and 3rd inner row teaching that the spacing of abrasive elements
and fixing means (taught by [Bergstrand]) is an obvious design expedient,”
and the “number of abrasive elements in either row and the pattern of
elements would be an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill
dependent on machining parameters and would not produce an unexpected
outcome and would have therefore constituted an obvious mechanical
expedient at the time of [Appellant’s] invention.” Id. at 4.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous. Appeal
Br. 4–10; Reply Br. 2–5. Appellant contends that claim 12’s “use of the
transitional phrase ‘consists of’ excludes any unrecited elements” so that
“the fixing means include only a first set of fixing means at first distance
from the center and a second set of fixing means at a second distance from
the center.” Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, the rejection is
Appeal 2020-001244
Application 13/062,430

6
erroneous because “none of the cited references, whether taken alone or in
combination, disclose the exact claimed combination of first set of fixing
means and a second set of fixing means.” Id. Appellant argues that the only
combination of fixing means taught by the references is Bergstrand’s single
set of fixing means 10 (Fig. 2) or more than two sets of fixing means 1 in
Bouvier (Fig. 1). Id. at 6–7. Appellant also argues that two concentric
fixing means “allows for flexibility of the placement of the carrier plates
while reducing the occurrence of circular grinding tracks,” and “[n]one of
the cited references provide for the specific number of sets of fixing means
claimed in independent claims leading to the noted advantages.” Appeal Br.
8, 9 (“The specification does in fact make reference to the claimed feature
serving an advantage/purpose, which is that the equal number of elongated
grooves achieves a balanced disc during grinding and maximal use of the
disc area (see page 3, lines 6–14).”).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that Bergstrand consists of one row and Bouvier teaches multiple
rows. Ans. 8. Appellant does not explain why the combination of
Bergstrand and Bouvier would not teach one of ordinary skill in the art to
form a disc with two or more concentric rows and, therefore, form a disc
consisting of only two rows, such as the outer two rows of Bouvier, which
have equal number of grinding elements. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 420–21 (2007) (“in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be
able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle”
and a “person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton”). The Examiner persuasively explains why it would be within
the level of ordinary skill to modify Bergstrand in light of Bouvier’s
Appeal 2020-001244
Application 13/062,430

7
teachings because the exact number of rows of grooves (with attached
abrasive elements) would depend on the size/diameter of disk being used for
specific abrading processes, as well as the specific size of the attached
abrasive elements distributed about the disc, and why a person of ordinary
skill in the art would choose the correct size of disc dependent on
application/abrading process and configuration of grooves/attached abrasive
elements based on what is needed at time of abrading. Ans. 8–9. Choosing
the correct size of disc and configuration of grooves/attached abrasive
elements would include the option of only two rows if needed. Id.
As to the purported criticality of “only” two concentric rows, the
Specification states that the claimed abrasive disc may have two or more
concentric rows of fixing means. Spec., 1:36–2:3 (“wherein the fixing
means are disposed at at [sic] least two separate distances from the centre of
the disc, first fixing means at a first predetermined distance and second
fixing means at a second predetermined distance, said second predetermined
distance being shorter than the first, so that the carrier plates will be
arranged in at least two rows, a first outer row and a second inner row”)
(emphasis added), 5:5–8 (“Moreover, an abrasive disc according to the
invention could comprise more than two fixing means, preferably
distributed evenly around an abrasive disc to balance the disc, and each
having a certain predetermined distance to the center of a disc that is
different from the distance of any other fixing means on the same disc.”)
(emphasis added). As to the purported criticality of an equal number of
grooves in each row, Bouvier teaches the placement of eight members
around two outer rows for proper balance. Bouvier, 3:11–20 (stating “to
insure proper balance of the final body, these cavities should be located in
Appeal 2020-001244
Application 13/062,430

8
pairs directly across the axis and arbor hole C from one another and at equal
distances from the axis of the disk. It is also important that the cavities be so
placed that as the device rotates adjacent studs shall trace paths which
overlap to a considerable degree but not completely, to assure uniform
polishing and the elimination of grooves and scratches in the stone being
polished.”).
For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 12 is sustained. Claims
13, 16, 18, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30–33, and 35–41 fall with claim 12.

Rejection 2: Claim 17
as Unpatentable over Bergstrand, Bouvier, and Sexton
The Examiner finds that claim 17 is unpatentable over Bergstrand,
Bouvier, and Sexton. Final Act. 5–7. Appellant argues that “Sexton fails to
cure the above-noted deficiencies of Bergstrand and Bouvier . . . . [A]s claim
17 depends from claim independent claim 12, claim 17 is patentable over the
Bergstrand, Bouvier, and Sexton, alone or in combination, for at least the
same reasons given above for independent claim 12.” Appeal Br. 10. For
the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 12, Appellant’s
arguments are not persuasive. Thus, the rejection of claim 17 is sustained.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 12, 13, 16–18, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30–
33, and 35–41are AFFIRMED.

Appeal 2020-001244
Application 13/062,430

9
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
12, 13, 16,
18, 21, 23,
27, 28, 30–
33, 35–41
103 Bergstrand,
Bouvier
12, 13, 16,
18, 21, 23,
27, 28, 30–
33, 35–41

17 103 Bergstrand,
Bouvier, Sexton
17
Overall
Outcome
12, 13, 16–
18, 21, 23,
27, 28, 30–
33, 35–41

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED