Appeal No. 2006-0887
Application No. 09/053,832
638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978)). Accordingly, the like rejection of
claims 18, 22, 25-27 and 31 is also sustained. We shall also sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 16, 23 and 24 as being unpatentable over Chambers in view of
Conrad and Baranski and further in view of Zimmerman since the appellant has not
challenged such with any reasonable specificity (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567,
1572, 2USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)), choosing instead to rely solely on
the arguments presented with respect to claim 15 (brief, p. 13), which we do not
find persuasive, as discussed above.
The rejection of claims 19-21 as being unpatentable over Chambers in view
of Conrad and Baranski is not sustained. None of the applied prior art would have
taught or suggested providing on the lower opposing surface of the belt a strip
having a plurality of V-shaped notches as defined in claim 19. One skilled in the
art possessed with the knowledge of the teachings of Chambers, Conrad and
Baranski would have been led to provide either a continuous strip (ridge 156) as
taught by Baranski or a plurality of projections 34 as taught by Chambers
extending from the lower opposing surface of the belts, neither of which would
result in the strip structure defined in claim 19, as well as claims 20 and 21
depending therefrom.
With respect to claim 28, which depends from claim 15 and further recites a
work bed disposed immediately beneath a portion of the endless belt for bearing at
least a partial weight of said material, the appellant (brief, p. 12) argues that, in a
horizontally-disposed belt as in Chambers, wear strips 114, as well as ridge 156,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007