Appeal No. 95-4371
Application No. 08/064,440
multiple, namely a multiple of one, of the pitch of successive
teeth-like projections on each belt portion.
With regard to appellant’s argument concerning the
recitation of a unit in claim 1, we find nothing in the
applicable definition of this word (namely, a piece or complex
of apparatus serving to perform a particular function) that
limits a unit to an integral or one-piece structure.
Furthermore, appellant’s argument is even contradicted by his
own specification. According to the embodiment of Figures 11
and 12, the unit is a two-piece structure. Yet, it is
unequivocally described on pages 10 and 15 of the
specification as being a “unit.” It is noted that claim 1
broadly calls for a unit without any limitation as to its
function as a carrier for any purpose.
Based on the foregoing analysis, we are satisfied that
Feighofen expressly or inherently discloses all of the
limitations of claim 1 to anticipate the subject matter of
claim 1. Accordingly, we will sustain the § 102(b) rejection
of claim 1.
With regard to dependent claim 5, Feighofen’s belt ends b
are shown in Figure 1 to diverge away from each other in the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007