Appeal 2006-2634
Application 10/294,537
tensile cord, and positioning a textile material over one of the rubber layers, and
then applying heat and pressure to vulcanize the rubber layers. As recognized by
the Examiner, the fabric layer of Tomiyama is not a seamless tubular textile
material. However, Rasero and Westhoff, as well as the acknowledged prior art
disclosed at page 3 of the present specification, 2nd ¶ evidence that it was well-
known in the art to employ seamless tubular fabrics in making power transmission
belts. As pointed out by the Examiner, Rasero expressly teaches that the seamless
tubular fabric eliminates the need for splicing, and that “[i]n small modern
machinery, such spliced belts are not suitable” (col. 4, ll. 50-51).
In our view, the collective teachings of the prior art support the Examiner’s
legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
to replace the seamed fabric of Tomiyama with the claimed seamless tubular
textile material that was known in the prior art. We note Appellant’s
acknowledgement that Westhoff “arguably uses similar materials as utilized in the
method of claim 18” (Br. 8, last sentence).
As for Appellant’s argument that the cited references do not address
Appellant’s problem of minimizing noise generation and providing lateral stability,
we agree with the Examiner that Tomiyama’s recognition of noise generated by
surface irregularities on the belt indicates that the noise generated by a seamed
fabric would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Also, the
Background section of Appellant’s specification seems to indicate that the noise
problem was known in the art. In any event, we are satisfied that the noise
problem associated with a seamed fabric would have been readily apparent to one
of ordinary skill in the art, as well as the solution of replacing the seamed fabric
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007