Appeal No. 2001-1275 Page 5
Application No. 09/128,120
See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d
1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
It is our view that the rejection is fatally defective at the outset since the examiner
has failed to provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to replace the anti-friction system disclosed in the German reference with that of
either Baker or Fiedler. Furthermore, our analysis of the references leads us to conclude3
that the required suggestion to combine the references in the manner proposed by the
examiner is lacking, for the reasons which follow.
The German reference was discussed by the appellant on page 1 of the
specification as an example of a system over which he considers his invention to be an
improvement. This reference discloses a conveyor belt and a conveyor belt drive coupled
to the conveyor belt. It does not, however, disclose a “layer . . . having at least one
adhesive side . . . and at least one other side,” the latter contacting either the belt or the
guide and providing a coefficient of friction less than the coefficient of friction that would be
present if the guide directly contacted the belt. In the German reference, at least part of the
surface of the guide is provided with “a grid of depressions (honeycomb pattern or waffle-
type structure)” (translation, page 6). The German reference can be used in wet or dry
3See Section 706.02(j) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007