Appeal No. 1997-2686
Application 08/346,635
We agree with the examiner that the intermediate
layers of Habegger are damping layers within the broad meaning
of that term. We also agree with the examiner that the
collective teachings of the applied prior art would have
suggested the obviousness of adding damping layers to the two-
layer belt of Eggebeen. Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of claims 7, 8, 19 and 20.
We now consider the rejection of claim 13 based on the
teachings of Eggebeen, Von Behren and Balloni. Appellants’
only argument with respect to this rejection is that Balloni
does not overcome the deficiencies of Eggebeen and Von Behren
as discussed above. Since we have found no deficiencies in
the examiner’s application of Eggebeen and Von Behren, we
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 13.
In summary, the examiner’s rejection of all pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been sustained with respect
to claims 2, 5-15, 17, 19 and 20, but has not been sustained
with respect to claims 3 and 4. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 2-15, 17, 19 and 20 is affirmed-
in-part.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007