Appeal 2007-2419
Application 10/681,413
1 in controlling slippage of the belt on the pulleys, and would not
2 be expected to adjust slip satisfactorily.
3
4 25. The Examiner responded and maintained that:
5 Although Masahiko shows the tensioning roller to be disposed
6 in contact with the section of the belt which moves from the
7 pulley of the take-up reel to the pulley of the supply reel, the text
8 is silent as to a required location of the roller. Because the
9 tensioning roller of Masahiko would increase the travel path of
10 the transfer belt and consequently increase the tension in the
11 transfer belt regardless of whether the tensioning roller contacts
12 the belt as it moves from the pulley of the take-up reel to the
13 pulley of the supply reel or as it moves from the pulley of the
14 supply reel to the pulley of the take-up reel, one of ordinary skill
15 in the art would realize that the tensioning roller could be
16 effective in the location shown by Hofmann.
17
18 D. Principles of Law
19 A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the
20 claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
21 in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
22 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383
23 U.S. 1 (1966).
24 Facts relevant to a determination of obviousness include (1) the scope
25 and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
26 invention and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art and (4) any relevant
27 objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR, 82 USPQ2d at
28 1388, Graham, 383 U.S. at 17.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013