Appeal 2007-1460
Application 10/481,336
track shoe (21) having protrusions (7) of a height HI on an
inner peripheral side thereof, each of said detachable pads being
mountable to and dismountable from a tread side of the rubber
belt part (4) by fastening fixtures;
wherein the rubber belt part (4) is provided with
interfitted holes (12) of a height H2 on portions corresponding
to the protrusions (7), the height HI of each of the protrusions
(7) is less than the depth H2 of each of the interfitted holes (12),
and the rubber elastic body (4a) is pressed by tightening
fastening fixtures (8, 18).
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Fukushima (as translated) JP 04-133876 May 7, 1992
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Fukushima.
2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fukushima.
ISSUE
Appellants contend that Fukushima fails to anticipate claim 1 because
(1) there is “no tightening force at all applied to the rubber belt” of Fukushima, and
(2) the height of the protrusion of the steel pipe 42 is not less than the depth of the
hole 24 (Appeal Br. 5, 7). Appellants further contend the specific tightening force
of claim 2 would not have been obvious in view of Fukushima (Appeal Br. 11, 12).
The Examiner contends that “the rubber elastic body will inevitably experience a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013