Appeal 2007-1364
Application 10/437,576
87 as it applies a counter-pressure to the timing belt 93 at the point of contact with
the cutter 87. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 12,
15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellants argue claim 3 separately. Claim 3, which depends from
independent claim 1, further requires that the band-shaped conveying element is a
belt guided in a groove formed on the rotating anvil element, a depth of the groove
being smaller than a thickness of the band-shaped conveying element. Stobb
teaches a timing belt 93, which rotates around pulley 102, acts to convey the web
around the cylinder surface and provides counter-pressure for the cutters 87
(Finding of Fact 4-6). The pulley 102 by definition has a groove (Finding of Fact
7). The groove of pulley 102 must have a depth smaller than the thickness of the
timing belt 93 in order to provide the required pressure against the belt, because if
the pulley had a groove depth greater than the thickness of the timing belt, the
pulley would come in contact with the cylinder surface before the belt (Finding of
Fact 8). As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
Appellants argue claim 4 separately. Claim 4, which depends from claim 3,
further requires that the belt is a toothed belt with reinforced sections in regions
where the cutting blade interacts with the belt. Appellants argue that the belt 93 of
Stobb is made of the same material (Appeal Br. 7). Stobb is silent with regard to
the material or materials used to construct the belt 93. The Examiner asserts that
“the sections are considered reinforced rubber elements and resistant to cutting by
the blade otherwise the invention would fail” (Answer 5). We disagree with the
Examiner’s conclusion of failure. Figures 6 and 13 of Stobb illustrate that the
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013