Appeal No. 97-2968
Application 08/531,077
to imply but, instead, more broadly states that other coating
compositions which possessed the property of “adhering” to the
vinyl could be substituted. This latter statement by appellant
can be construed to mean nothing more than if other compositions
were discovered which possessed the property of “adhering,” then
they too can be utilized.
The examiner also notes that Roller in line 44 of column 4
states that the belts may be “Vinyl Coated Polyester” and urges
that vinyl is “inclusive” of polyurethane. However, the mere
fact that, as a broad proposition, polyurethane might be
considered to be a vinyl does not provide a sufficient factual
basis for establishing the obviousness of the particular “vinyl,”
i.e., polyurethane, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. This
being the case we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roller.
Turning to the rejection of claims 4-12, 14 and 15 based on
the combined teachings of Roller and Moss, it is the examiner’s
position that it would have been obvious to form the rollers 58
of Roller as crowned rollers in view of the teachings of Moss “in
order to insure proper guiding and centering of the belt material
around the belt take-up member” (answer, page 5). In support of
this position the answer states that:
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007