Appeal 2006-2824
Application 10/441,513
The Examiner applies Matuschczyk and Schiel as secondary
references in the rejection of several dependent claims (Answer 7-8).
Appellants only argue that these references disclose one belt, and thus do not
suggest the dual belt layers formed of the same material as claimed (Br. 10-
11). We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions of law as set forth
in the Answer regarding these secondary references (Answer 7-8). We note
that Matuschczyk and Schiel were not applied to show the dual belt system
but were applied as evidence of the thicknesses of the two layers
(Matuschczyk) and the use of a material to coat the mandrel to promote easy
removal of the belt (Schiel).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the totality of the
record, including due consideration of Appellants’ arguments, we determine
that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
obviousness within the meaning of § 103(a). Therefore we AFFIRM all
rejections on appeal based on § 103(a).
C. Summary
The rejection of claims 14, 15, 17, and 21-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Grossmann is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 9, 11-13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Grossmann is AFFIRMED. The rejection of claims 6-8, 18, 19, 28, and
29 under § 103(a) over Grossmann in view of Matuschczyk is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 10 and 20 under § 103(a) over Grossmann in view of
Schiel is AFFIRMED.
The decision of the Examiner is AFFIRMED.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007