Appeal No. 2006-0599
Application 10/076,270
Since Mitzkus fails to evidence any problem with the seal therein, and since neither
Mitzkus nor Wier teaches anything about coating plates that contact edges of a draw/drive
belt, such as the flat belts (21) of Mitzkus, to reduce the amount of gas that escapes through
an interface between the edges of the drive belts and the facing plate surfaces, we must
agree with appellants that the examiner has failed to meet his burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness. For that reason, we refuse to sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 11 and 14 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As further noted by appellants in their reply brief (page 2), even assuming arguendo, that
Mitzkus and Wier could be properly combined, such a combination would not result in the
invention set forth in the claims on appeal. Since Wier teaches coating the movable traction
transfer cable (11), it would appear that, at best, the result of combining Wier and Mitzkus
would be an arrangement like that of Mitzkus wherein the movable draw/drive belts (21)
would be coated with wax or silicon to enhance sealing, instead of having a coating on the
inner surface of each of the plates forming the band running chamber (23) as defined in the
claims on appeal.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitzkus, Wier and Stephens, we have
reviewed the added Stephens patent, but find that this patent directed to oil seals for rotary
shafts does not overcome or otherwise cure the deficiencies in the basic combination of
Mitzkus and Wier noted above. Thus, the rejection of dependent claims 12 and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) will likewise not be sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007