Appeal No. 2003-1178 Page 5
Application No. 09/218,990
rope for applications in mines or elevators” (column 1, lines 15 and 16). The reference
also discloses a conveyor belt comprising a plurality of cords arranged in side-by-side
relationship and enclosed in a coating layer having an aspect ratio greater than one
(Figure 9). However, the reference does not explicitly teach that the member shown in
Figure 9 can be used as a tension member for providing lifting force nor, in our view
would one of ordinary skill in the art consider that to be the case, inasmuch as a
conveyor belt is not generally considered to be a member for providing lifting force.
With regard to the diameter of the wires, while Bruyneel discloses a range which
encompasses the value recited in claim 1, we agree with the appellants that there is no
suggestion in the reference which would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art
to select from this range the value of .25 mm or less as the diameter for the wires used
in the conveyor belt of Figure 9. In this regard, we note that the appellants have
attached importance to this value in achieving the improvements provided by their
invention, which include improving the load distribution on the sheaves over which the
member passes and allowing sheaves of smaller diameter to be utilized. Specification,
pages 2 and 3.
It is our opinion that Bruyneel fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 1, and therefore we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 1 or of claims 2, 3, 5-15, 18, 20, 23 and 45-50, which are dependent
therefrom.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007