Appeal No. 99-0165
Application 08/478,070
person, however, would not reasonably consider each Japanese
base part 3 and the portion of the adjacent pinching piece
containing the apparent bore to be a guide element and the
remainder of the pinching piece to be a component part as
urged by the examiner. This interpretation of the Japanese
“belt” is quite arbitrary and has no reasonable basis in the
disclosure of the reference.
Thus, the Japanese reference does not disclose each and
every element of the invention recited in independent claim
16. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claim 16 or of claims 17, 20 and 21
which depend therefrom.
In addition to not disclosing a belt meeting the
foregoing limitations in claim 16, the Japanese reference,
taken alone or in combination with Erlichman, would not have
suggested same to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of dependent claims 18 and 19.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007