Appeal No. 2004-1052 Page 8
Application No. 09/848,132
N/mm/mm (2250 lbf/in/in). A broad conclusory statement regarding the obviousness of
modifying a reference, standing alone, is not "evidence." Thus, when an examiner
relies on general knowledge to negate patentability, that knowledge must be articulated
and placed on the record. See In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342-45, 61 USPQ2d 1430,
1433-35 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See also In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d
1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Without such evidence, we must reverse the decision of
the examiner to reject claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 26 reads as follows:
A two-pulley accessory drive system for an automobile, comprising:
a drive pulley;
an accessory pulley operatively coupled to an accessory drive shaft, the
drive pulley and accessory pulley having a nominal drive length therebetween;
and
an endless drive belt engaged between the drive pulley and the accessory
pulley, the drive belt including an endless band of rubber composite material
having a plurality of circumferentially extending and axially aligned cords formed
therewithin;
wherein the endless drive belt has a tensile modulus of approximately
8500 N/mm/mm (1910 lbf/in/in); and
wherein the circumferential length of the endless drive belt, before
installation on the pulleys, is approximately 2.2% to approximately 2.3% lower
than the nominal drive length between the drive pulley and the accessory pulley.
With regard to independent claim 26, Winninger's specific belt disclosed in the
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION section does not teach or suggest an endless
drive belt having a tensile modulus of approximately 8500 N/mm/mm (1910 lbf/in/in).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007