Appeal No. 95-4371
Application No. 08/064,440
With regard to appellant’s argument concerning the pitch
of the teeth as set forth on page 11 of the main brief, claim
1 does not refer to any pitch or other distance “spanning
across connected belt sections.” Once again, features not
claimed may not be relied upon to support patentability. Id
Furthermore, appellant’s use of the term “pitch” in his
arguments does not appear to be in accord with its applicable
dictionary definition. According to Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Company, 1971), the
word “pitch” is defined as the distance between a point on one
tooth and a corresponding point “on the next tooth” (emphasis
added). Given this definition of the word “pitch,” the
recitation in claim 1 that the pitch between teeth on one belt
portion and the pitch between teeth on the other belt portion
is “a whole multiple of the pitch of successive teeth of each
belt portion” does not distinguish from Feighofen’s belt,
inasmuch as the pitch between the teeth-like projections on
one of Feighofen’s two belt portions b and the pitch between
teeth-like projections on the other of the two belt portions b
are shown in Figure 1 of Feighofen’s drawings to be a whole
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007