Appeal No. 1997-1888 Page 14
Application No. 08/221,467
It is our opinion that the combination of McCarten and
Kiuchi would not have been suggestive of the subject matter of
the appellants' claims 39 and 40. Both claims require "a
fibrous material substantially, uniformly disposed throughout
said endless elastic body layer" and a "reinforcing" structure
"adjacent to the inner edge of the belt", described as a
"reinforcing yarn" in claim 39 and as a "reinforcing material
body" in claim 40. McCarten's disclosure (Fig. 2) of a fiber-
reinforced blanket (belt) with the fibers randomly oriented
(column 3, line 24) does not teach or suggest either a
reinforcing yarn (as recited in the appellants' claim 39) or a
reinforcing material body (as recited in the appellants' claim
40) adjacent to the inner edge of the belt. Kiuchi's pressure
belt (Fig. 2) is constructed of a layer of synthetic resin
formed on both surfaces (sides) of the base fabric composed of
filament yarns of synthetic fiber (column 5, lines 5-9) but
does not teach or suggest a reinforcing yarn, or a reinforcing
material body, adjacent to the inner edge of the belt as
recited in the appellants' claims 39 and 40, respectively.
Since neither McCarten or Kiuchi teach or suggest
reinforcement adjacent to the inner edge of the belt, one of
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007