Appeal 2007-1460
Application 10/481,336
elastic rubber body” in order to “prevent loosening in the belt while reducing
noise” (Answer 4). Appellants contend that the tightening force of Fukushima is
applied between the end of the steel pipe and the metal core of the rubber belt unit
not to the rubber elastic body as claimed (Br. 5). We agree with the Appellants.
Although we agree, for the reasons discussed supra, with the Examiner’s
holding that the rubber elastic body is necessarily pressed between the lug unit and
the metal core of the rubber belt, the Examiner has not provided any evidence that
application of a specific tightening force between the metal core and the steel pipes
necessarily results in the same force being applied to the rubber elastic body. For
the claimed tightening force to be inherent, the depth/thickness of the rubber elastic
body would have to be greater than the height of the protrusion of the steel pipes.
There is no evidence or suggestion in Fukushima of such a configuration. To the
contrary, Fukushima discloses only that the surface of the rubber elastic body and
the surface of the lug unit come in contact with each other. Therefore, it does not
necessarily flow that the force exerted on the metal core and steel pipes would also
be exerted on the rubber elastic body. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude:
1) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Fukushima.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013