Appeal No. 95-4371
Application No. 08/064,440
claim 1, contrary to appellant’s statement on page 1 of the
reply brief.
We cannot sustain the § 102(b) rejection of claims 6 and
9. Although Feighofen’s belt ends b diverge from each other,
they do not extend in opposite directions to thus lie
diametrically opposite from each other as required by claim 6.
With regard to claim 9, Feighofen’s unit does not have an
underside facing the belt in an arrangement in which the belt-
receiving channels extend from that underside to be form-
closed in the longitudinal direction.
With regard to claim 12, which is rejected under § 103,
the recitation that the unit “comprises a carrier” does not
distinguish the claimed structure from Feighofen since
Feighogen’s connector unit is inherently capable of
functioning as a “carrier.” Claim 13 also does not distinguish
from Feighofen since an integral part of one of Feighofen’s
clamping plates is inherently capable of functioning as a
“carrier.” For these reasons we will sustain the § 103
rejection of claims 12 and 13, it being noted that the
rejection of these claims under § 103 is nonetheless proper
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007