Appeal No. 2006-0887
Application No. 09/053,832
belt element of each of the input conveyor 10 and the output conveyor 20 is trained
about an input-side pulley and an output-side pulley, as this is the conventional
arrangement for an endless belt conveyor, as exemplified by Conrad (Figure 1).
Accordingly, the recitation of input-side and output-side pulleys on each of the
input and output conveyors does not patentably distinguish appellant’s claim 15
over the saw machine of Chambers.
The examiner also concedes that Chambers lacks the grooves in the pulleys
and the guiding strip on the lower opposing surface of each of the endless belts.
We acknowledge the examiner’s statement in the first paragraph on page 4 of the
answer that belts with notch grips are disclosed as commercially available belts in
appellant’s specification (p. 3, ll. 14-27), but are uncertain precisely which
“feature” is rendered obvious “[f]or this reason alone” (answer, p. 4). We thus turn
our attention to the examiner’s “alternative” position, relying on the additional
teachings of Conrad and Baranski, set forth on pages 4 and 5 of the answer.
The provision of a ridge 156 on the roller-engaging side of a continuous belt
80 aligned with continuously circumferentially-extending channels 122, 124 in the
rollers 126, 128 around which the belt is trained, and a pair of wear strips 114
defining a channel 120 also aligned with both the ridge 156 and channels 122, 124,
to keep the belt from shifting in the axial direction along the rollers was well
known in the art at the time of the appellant’s invention, as evidenced by Baranski
(see Figures 4 and 5 and col. 4, ll. 30-68). While it is true that the endless belt and
support structure arrangement disclosed by Baranski is embodied in a rotatable
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007