Appeal 2007-1364
Application 10/437,576
timing belts, such as timing belts 66 and 93, include recesses 71 and 94,
respectively, for receiving the knife blade or cutter (Finding of Fact 9-10).
Nowhere in Stobb is there any teaching or suggestion of reinforcing those sections
(i.e., adjacent recesses 71 and 94) of the timing belts configured to receive the
blade or cutter. Although it may be advantageous to reinforce the timing belts in
those areas where the belt is to receive the knife or cutter, the Examiner has not
provided any evidence that it is necessary to prevent failure. Therefore,
reinforcement of the timing belts does not necessarily flow from the teachings of
Stobb (Finding of Fact 12). As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Stobb.
Appellants argue claim 6 separately. Claim 6 depends from claim 4. As
such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) for the same reasons set forth supra with regard to claim 4.
Appellants argue claim 13 separately. Claim 13, which depends from claim
12, further requires that the rotating band-shaped conveying element is
manufactured over its entire length from a material resistant to damage by the
cutting blade, and a further rotating band-shaped conveying element (introduced in
claim 12) is manufactured from a non-resistant material. Appellants argue that
there is “no indication anywhere in Stobb that belt 93 is made of a material
different from that of the further conveying element, irrespective of whether the
belt 93 is made of a cut-resistant material or not” (Appeal Br. 8). The Examiner
argues that the thickness of the belt 93 at recesses 94 necessarily requires the belt
to be made of a resistant material, whereas the other belts do not require such a
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013