Appeal No. 2002-0037 Page 4
Application No. 08/899,292
reduce the chance of slippage between Moore's rolls and the pattern as well as reduce
the load on the rolls.
In the answer (pp. 3-4), the examiner (1) set forth the teachings of Moore;
(2) ascertained that the only difference between Moore and the subject matter of claims
1 and 12 was that Moore lacked a drive roller for driving Moore's pattern m; (3) took
Official Notice that drive rollers to drive endless belts are old and well known in the art;
and (4) determined it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as
a matter of common sense to provide a drive roller for Moore's pattern for the well
known benefits including to reduce the drag of the pattern through the apparatus and
thus reduce the chance of slippage between Moore's rolls and the pattern as well as
reduce the load on the rolls.1
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree. Specifically, the applied prior art does not suggest
modifying Moore's apparatus to provide a drive roller to drive Moore's pattern. In that
regard, while it may be old and well known in the art to have drive rollers drive endless
belts, there is no teaching or suggestion as to why it would have been obvious at the
1 37 CFR § 1.193(a)(2) prohibits an examiner's answer from containing a new ground of rejection.
The examiner's use of Official Notice for the first time in the rejection set forth in the answer may
constitute a new ground of rejection prohibited by 37 CFR § 1.193(a)(2). However, the appellants have
not raised this issue and we see no need, in this case, to have that issue decided.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007