Appeal No. 2001-1275 Page 3
Application No. 09/128,120
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellant’s invention is directed to the problem of reducing the friction between
a conveyor belt guide surface and the surface of the conveyor belt that is in contact
therewith. In the disclosure of the invention, the problem is solved by interposing a layer of
material having a low friction surface between the belt guide and the belt, examples being
an anti-friction tape or a coating. As manifested in independent claim 1, the invention
comprises a layer having at least one adhesive side provided between a conveyor belt
and a conveyor belt guide, and wherein a coefficient of friction between one of the
conveyor belt and the conveyor belt guide and the other side of the layer is lower than a
coefficient of friction between the conveyor belt and the conveyor belt guide.
Although not succinctly stated, it would appear that the examiner’s position is that
the German reference teaches all of the subject matter recited in claim 1 except for the
particular friction-reducing element, but it would have been obvious to replace the friction-
reducing element in this reference with the one recited in the claim in view of the teachings
of Baker or Fiedler. However, the examiner makes no mention in the statement of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007