Court Opinion

ID: 9454522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:49:06.512307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:09.348780
License: Public Domain

NEESE, Judge
(concurring).
The subject matter of the appellant’s invention is in a elassfication recognized by the Patent Office as cutting wheels,1 made by a process wherein a hard metal carbide rim, employed to exert a shearing action, is bonded to a hub. The prior art cited by the examiner and relied on by the Board of Appeals relates to abrading wheels.2
I am in accord with Judge Baldwin’s opinion that none of these prior art references teaches the expedient of joining a hard metal carbide cutting rim, as that term is used in the prior art and understood by those skilled in the art, to a sleeve or shaft by means of an epoxy resin and powdered metal supporting mem*428ber; and that a combining of these references will not result in a rotary slitting-knife for slitting metal-strip and -sheet.
The differences between the prior art and the subject matter sought to be patented by the appellant are apparent in the record, i. e., a slitting-wheel which cuts shee-metal by a shearing action differs in kind from an abrading wheel which removes material by abrasive action; and, in operational use, tungsten carbide is applied in a slitting-wheel, not to remove metal as in abrasion, but to resist wear while providing the force to be imposed in the shearing of sheet-metal.
There is no evidence before us suggesting that a person of ordinary skill in the slitter-wheel art would glean information from the abrading-wheel art in solving this problem in the slitter-wheel art. Thus, under the record before us, the differences between (a) the subject matter sought by the appellant to be patented and (b) the prior art, are not such that such subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertained. 35 U.S.C. § 103; see Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545, 556 [11] (1966).
For the foregoing reasons, I concur in the reversal of the § 103 rejection, and in all other respects I join the opinion of Judge Baldwin.

. In Class 83 of the Patent Office Classification Manual entitled “cutting” which includes machines and tools for cutting.

. In Class 51 of the Patent Office Classification Manual entitled “abrading” which includes machines and tools for abrading.