Appeal No. 1997-2686
Application 08/346,635
examiner also observes that the “adjacent” and “further away”
recitations of claim 15 are met by use of the Eggebeen belt in
the Von Behren cartridge [answer, pages 6-7].
Appellants argue that Eggebeen has no teaching of
inserting the two-layer belt such that the layer of high
stiffness material is adjacent to the tape pack and the low
stiffness material is further away from the tape pack [brief,
pages 7-8]. Appellants also argue that Eggebeen teaches that
a two-layer belt is less desirable than a belt having a blend
of polymers in a single layer [id., page 8]. Finally,
appellants argue that the examiner’s interpretation of
“adjacent” is
unreasonable as it directly contradicts the teaching
throughout the specification [id., page 9].
With respect to appellants’ second argument, we agree
with the examiner that Eggebeen’s teaching that a single layer
of blended materials is preferable to two laminated layers
does not repudiate Eggebeen’s teaching that two-layer belts
had been successfully used. With respect to appellants’ first
and third arguments noted above, we agree with the examiner
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007