Appeal No. 2004-1078
Application No. 09/765,121
For the reasons aptly advanced by appellants in their brief
(pages 3-5), we agree that the portion of the coated abrasive
belt (1) in Benedict focused on by the examiner, i.e., the
endless seamless backing loop (5 or 30), is not an anticipation
of the power transmission belt defined in appellants' claim 1 on
appeal. More particularly, we note appellants' argument in the
paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 of the brief concerning how the
orientation and inter-relationship of the layers in the backing
loop of Benedict differ from that required in claim 1 on appeal.
Accordingly, the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) based on Benedict, and of claims 2, 5 through 8 and 10
which depend therefrom, will not be sustained.
We have also reviewed the patents to White and Wolfe relied
upon by the examiner in rejections of dependent claims 3, 4 and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, we find nothing in these
patents which would overcome or supply that which we have found
to be lacking in Benedict. Moreover, like appellants, we see no
reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to
modify the abrasive belt described and shown in Benedict to
incorporate longitudinally extending ribs like those seen in the
power transmission belt of White, especially since Benedict
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007