Appeal 2007-1460
Application 10/481,336
According to Fukushima, the lug unit is attached to the rubber belt by bringing the
steel pipes 42 into contact with the indentions 25 of holes 24 during tightening
(Finding of Fact 5). Furthermore, the rubber elastic body 31 of the rubber belt unit
20 is located between the metal core 21 and the outer surface 47 of the lug unit
(Finding of Fact 5). As a result, when the lug unit is attached to the rubber belt by
tightening bolts 50 (Finding of Fact 7), the rubber elastic body is necessarily
“pressed” between the surface of the lug unit and the metal core.
Appellants further argue that Fukushima fails to disclose that the depth of
the hole in the rubber belt is greater than the height of the corresponding
protrusions in the lug unit (i.e., the height corresponding to H1 is not less than the
depth corresponding to H2) (Br. 7). We disagree.
Fukushima discloses that the rubber belt unit has holes extending completely
through the rubber belt unit that correspond to the location of the protrusions in the
lug unit. In addition, Fukushima discloses that that the height of the protrusion of
the steel pipe extends only to a depth of the indentions 25 (Finding of Fact 6). As a
result, the depth of the hole in the rubber belt of Fukushima is necessarily larger
than the height of its corresponding protrusions in the lug unit as the protrusions
extend only to indentions 25. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, further requires that a tightening force
of 4.90 to 78.5 MPa per unit area is applied to the rubber elastic body. In rejecting
claim 2, the Examiner held that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
to use a “tightening force of 4.90 to 78.5 MPa per unit area that is applied to the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013