Appeal 2007-1364
Application 10/437,576
resistant material because they do not experience the same pressure from cutting
blades (Answer 6). We agree with Appellants. Although it may be advantageous
to make the timing belts, such as belt 93, from a resistant material, it does not
necessarily flow from the teachings of Stobb. As such, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellants argue claim 16 separately. Claim 16, which depends from claim
1, further requires that the rotating band-shaped conveying element is passed
around the rotating anvil element via deflection pulleys such that the rotating band-
shaped conveying element is guided on and in contact with the perimeter of the
cylinder over a predetermined angular range before a point of interaction of the
cutting blade and the anvil element. Stobb teaches that the timing belt 93 is trained
on three pulleys such that the belt is pressed against the cylinder surface, extending
across the circumference on opposite sides of the location of the cutter 87 (Finding
of Fact 5). Appellants argue that the pulleys of Stobb are not deflection pulleys
(Appeal Br. 8-9). However, Appellants have provided no evidence to support that
the pulleys, upon which the timing belt 93 is trained, are not deflection pulleys. As
such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellants argue claim 18 separately. Claim 18, which depends from claim
1, further requires that the rotating anvil element includes a cutting rubber element.
Appellants argue that Stobb fails to disclose a cutting rubber element as claimed.
Stobb does not teach that the pulley 102 includes a rubber cutting element as
claimed (Appeal Br. 9). The Examiner fails to address this limitation. As such, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013