Appeal No. 1997-1888 Page 18
Application No. 08/221,467
our opinion that the combination of McCarten, Kiuchi and
Cronin would not have been suggestive of the subject matter of
the appellants' claim 47. Accordingly, the examiner has not
set forth a prima facie case of obviousness and the examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 47, and of
dependent claims 48, 49 and 50, as unpatentable over McCarten
in view of Kiuchi and further in view of Cronin will not be
sustained.
The rejection of claims 24, 25, 44, 45, 51 and 52 which
depend from claim 39 or claim 40 will not be sustained for the
same reason as noted in the above rejection based on McCarten
and Kiuchi since Cronin does not make up for the deficiency (a
teaching or suggestion of reinforcement adjacent to the inner
edge of the belt) in McCarten and Kiuchi.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claim 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is affirmed;
the decision of the examiner to reject claim 52 under 35
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007