Appeal 2007-1330
Application 10/451,725
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Appellants’ invention to make the pressing elements (rails 41, 42) of
Bruestle’s press rollers for pressing belts (chains 80, 82) into engagement
with work to be fed as taught by Fisk to reduce friction and wear between
the belts and the pressing structures. Id. Appellants do not specifically
challenge this contention. Rather, Appellants challenge the Examiner’s
further determination that it would have been obvious to provide Bruestle
with planetary gears having independently rotatable primary axles as taught
by Bonfiglioli (Answer 4) to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1 (Appeal
Br. 9-11). Accordingly, the dispositive issue with respect to the rejection of
claim 1, and claims 2-10 depending therefrom, is whether the Examiner
erred in determining that it would have been obvious, in view of Bonfiglioli,
to modify Bruestle to provide two planetary gears having independently
rotatable primary axles, as called for in claim 1.
The drive arrangement for driving Bruestle’s shafts 11 and 12, which
in turn rotate sprockets 13 and 14 to drive chains 80 and 82, includes a
single shaft 19 rotated by a suitable power source through a chain and
sprocket 24. Shaft 19 has a pair of bevel gears 17 and 18 mounted thereon,
which bevel gears mesh with bevel gears 15 and 16 to drive sprockets 13
and 14. Bruestle’s drive arrangement effects “conjoint movement of the
chains 80 and 82.” (Bruestle, col. 1, ll. 67-72, col. 2, ll. 67-68, col. 3, ll. 17-
26.)
The Examiner does not specify how Bruestle is to be modified to
provide “planetary gears having independently rotatable primary axles as
taught by Bonfiglioli” (Answer 4). The Examiner does hint, however, that
the modification would involve the substitution of a planetary gear angle
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013