Appeal No. 2006-0887
Application No. 09/053,832
fence 42 rather than in a load-carrying belt conveyor,2 the benefit of lateral (i.e.,
normal to the direction of travel and parallel to the axes of rotation of the pulleys or
rollers) alignment and tracking is just as applicable in a load-carrying endless
conveyor and would have been appreciated as such by one of ordinary skill in the
art, as evidenced by the teaching by Conrad of providing projections on the surface
of a load-carrying conveyor belt 26 opposite the load-carrying surface for
engagement in grooves 24 of pulley 12 to “cause belt [26] to be kept in a central
position on pulley 12 despite variations in side-loadings in the belt 26” (col. 3, ll.
27-29). We therefore find no error in the examiner’s determination that it would
have been obvious, in view of the combined teachings of Conrad and Baranski, to
provide a ridge or strip, such as ridge 156 taught by Baranski, on the lower
opposing surface of the belt of each of the input conveyor 10 and output conveyor
20 of Chambers aligned with a groove or channel in the pulleys and a channel
defined in a support surface between the pulleys of the input and output conveyors
to keep the belts centrally positioned on the pulleys.
In light of the above, the rejection of claim 15 as being unpatentable over
Chambers in view of Conrad and Baranski is sustained. The appellant has not
argued separately the patentability of claims 18, 22, 25-27 and 31 apart from claim
15, allowing them to stand or fall with representative claim 15 (see In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d
2 Although the load (wood) is supported by spiked rollers 44 rather than by Baranski’s fence 42, the rotation of belt
80 of fence 42 forces the wood being split toward the exit 16 when the resaw 2 is in use (col. 3, ll. 37-40).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007