Appeal No. 1997-1888 Page 16
Application No. 08/221,467
side and a second laminate (58) on a second side (column 8,
lines 17-28). As described at column 8, lines 39-47
The laminates 52 and 58 have a hardness
differential relative to each other with the
first laminate 52 having a hardness which
permits flexing of the first laminate 52 during
passage through and around the extended nip 18
and around ancillary rolls or the like (not
shown). The second laminate 58 has a hardness
such that
crushing of the recesses 64 and 66 during
passage through the extended nip 18 is inhibited
so that the fluid flow 68 is unimpeded.
The examiner's rejection relies on McCarten and Kiuchi,
as applied in the above rejection, with the further
modification that it would have been obvious to provide
Cronin's disclosure of an endless belt having a higher
hardness on the outer radial surface than on the inner radial
surface to obtain an endless belt having flexibility in the
radial direction as well as grooves that resist crushing. The
appellants argue that "the prior art utilized by the Examiner
would also fail to suggest or render obvious this (claim 47)
claimed belt" (brief, page 18).
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007