Appeal No. 1997-1888 Page 17
Application No. 08/221,467
Based on our analysis and review of the applied prior art
(McCarten, Kiuchi and Cronin) and claim 47, it is our opinion
that the difference is the claim 47 recitation of ”the
hardness of the impregnated fibrous material in the outer
radial direction of the belt is different from the hardness of
the impregnated fibrous material in the inner radial direction
of the belt". This feature is described by the appellants at
page 27 of the specification wherein it is explained that "it
is possible to use different types of the fibrous material
and/or the elastic body precursor to be impregnated in elastic
body layer 36a and elastic body layer 36b". We do not find a
teaching or suggestion in McCarten, Kiuchi or Cronin of using
impregnated fibrous material of different hardness as recited
in the appellants' claim 47. McCarten teaches fibers (38, 39
and 40) distributed throughout polyurethane body (18) but does
not teach or suggest the hardness of the outer impregnated
radial fibers should be different than the hardness of the
inner impregnated radial fibers. Neither Kiuchi or Cronin
teach or suggest impregnated fibers distributed throughout the
polyurethane belt, much less that the impregnated fibers
should be of different hardness. For the above reasons, it is
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007