Appeal No. 2004-1052 Page 6
Application No. 09/848,132
taught by the specific belt disclosed in the BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION section
of Winninger.
Claim 15 is not anticipated by the belt and pulley system disclosed in the
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION section of Winninger for the following two
reasons. First, the 5.5 daN/% of elongation per belt width centimeter per strand taught
by the specific belt disclosed in the BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION section of
Winninger is not encompassed within approximately2 7000 N/mm/mm (i.e.,
approximately 6.8 daN/% of elongation per belt width centimeter per strand) since 5.5
daN/% of elongation per belt width centimeter per strand is not close to or nearly the
same as 6.8 daN/% of elongation per belt width centimeter per strand. Second, the
drive pulley around which the specific belt disclosed in the BACKGROUND OF THE
INVENTION section of Winninger is mounted is not disclosed as being driven by an
automobile engine as required by claim 15. In that regard, we agree with the appellant
(reply brief, pp. 1-2) that Winninger's statement that "[a]nyway, belts of this type but
usable for automotive applications are not on the market at the present time" does not
necessary indicate that the specific belt disclosed in the BACKGROUND OF THE
2 The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, (1982) defines "approximate" as "to
come close to; be nearly the same as."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007