Appeal 2007-0163
Application 10/318,898
Appellants’ arguments directed to Young’s Figure 1 do not negate the
Examiner’s findings discussed above (Br. 4-5).
Accordingly, we concur with the Examiner that Young renders the
subject matter recited in claim 7 anticipated within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner determined that the combined disclosures of Young,
Nakamura, and optionally at least one of Travers and Kishi would have
rendered the subject matter defined by claims 1 through 4, 6 through 10, and
12 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103 (Answer 9-14).3 The disclosure of Young is discussed
above. The Examiner recognized that Young does not specify the claimed
decoupling groove size (full radius) and distance between the bottom center
of the decoupling groove and the outer most end of the belt layers (Answer
9-14). To remedy the above deficiencies of Young, the Examiner relied on,
inter alia, the disclosures of Nakamura and Travers (Answer 9-11). The
Appellants contend that no suggestion can be found in any of the prior art
relied upon by the Examiner to arrive at the claimed distance and decoupling
groove size (Br. 5-9).
3 Although we concur with the Examiner that claim 3 is indefinite, we will
decide the propriety of the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 3, 4, and 5
to avoid piecemeal appellate review in the interest of administrative and
judicial economy. Ex parte Saceman, 27 USPQ2d 1472, 1474 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1993). For purposes of this decision, we will presume that claim
3 is dependent on either claim 1 or 2.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013