Appeal No. 2004-1078
Application No. 09/765,121
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 11, mailed June 3, 2003) for the examiner's
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief
(Paper No. 10, filed March 10, 2003) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that none of the
examiner's rejections before us on appeal will be sustained. Our
reasoning in support of this determination follows.
Appellants' independent claim 1 defines an endless "power
transmission belt" having an inner compression section (12), an
outer tension section (16), and a load-carrying section (17)
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007