Appeal No. 1997-2686
Application 08/346,635
that the claim does not sufficiently distinguish from the
Eggebeen belt operating in the Von Behren cartridge.
The examiner’s position is basically that when one
looks at the entire path of the drive belt, there are points
at which the layer having high stiffness would be nearer to
the tape pack and points where the layer having low stiffness
would be nearer to the tape pack. For example, in appellants’
Figure 1, drive belt 18 has the layer of high stiffness
material closer to the tape pack at the point of contact with
the tape pack, but the layer of low stiffness is closer to the
tape pack at the points between the guide rollers 22 and 24.
Thus, regardless of which way the Eggebeen belt is inserted
into the Von Behren cartridge, there are points within the
cartridge where the limitations of
claim 15 are satisfied. The examiner’s position is simply
that claim 15 fails to limit the invention to what was
disclosed as the intended invention. Since appellants could
amend the claim to properly define the invention, we agree
with the examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation
of the present claims covers an invention which is suggested
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007