Appeal No. 2006-0887
Application No. 09/053,832
Claim 17 depends from claim 16 and further recites that the input-side
pulley of the input conveyor and the output-side pulley of the output conveyor are
passively driven by the output-side pulley of the input conveyor and the input-side
pulley of the output conveyor via the endless belts. The examiner’s reliance on
Zimmerman for a teaching of such an arrangement is not well founded.
Zimmerman is not directed to endless belt conveyors but, rather, discloses a
woodworking machine wherein the wood is conveyed by feed rolls 36, 38, each of
which is positively driven by rotation of shafts 40a, 40b, 40c, 40d, 40e and 40f, on
which the feed rolls are fixedly mounted, by chain drives 46, 48, 50, 52, 54 and 56.
It is not immediately apparent that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
looked to the feed roll drive arrangement of Zimmerman for suggestions as to a
drive arrangement for endless conveyor belts. Even assuming that such a person
would have looked to Zimmerman, the only suggestion one of ordinary skill in the
art could have possibly gleaned from Zimmerman’s drive arrangement would be to
provide positive drive to each of the pulleys of the input and output conveyors.
Such a drive arrangement would not meet the “passively driven” limitation of
claim 17. It follows that the rejection of claim 17 as being unpatentable over
Chambers in view of Conrad and Baranski and further in view of Zimmerman is
not sustained.
CONCLUSION
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007