Appeal 2006-2634
Application 10/294,537
with the known seamless fabric. In re Ludwig, 353 F.2d 241, 244, 147 USPQ 420,
421 (CCPA 1965).
Concerning the lateral stability attributed to the use of a seamless tubular
fabric, we agree with the Examiner that such advantage would have been
necessarily attained by the obvious use of a seamless tubular fabric in the
transmission belt of Tomiyama. Appellant contends that Rasero “does not even
apply to a power transmission belt in which the load carrying member is built into
the belt by helically winding a strain-resisting tensile cord about a rubber layer as
called for in claim 18.” (Br. 6, ¶ 3). However, as explained by the Examiner, the
focus of Rasero is the particular weave of the tubular fabric, and not the
conventional steps of forming a transmission belt on a drum. Nonetheless, Rasero
specifically teaches that the disclosed seamless tubular fabrics are used in power
transmission belts. (See col. 1, l. 6 et seq.).
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Westhoff does not
apply to fabrics applied to the exterior back surface of the belt. The advantage of
eliminating splicing discussed by Rasero would attach to any fabric material in a
transmission belt. Furthermore, as noted by the Examiner, claim 18 on appeal does
not require that the tubular fabric is applied to the exterior back surface of the belt.
Claim 18 expressly states that the tubular textile material is positioned over the
drum and in contact with one of the rubber layers, which can be the first rubber
layer before the helically wound tensile cord and second rubber layer are applied.
The limitations of the separately argued dependent claims have been
adequately addressed by the Examiner in the Answer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007