Appeal 2007-2419
Application 10/681,413
1 the take-up reel 4, the diameter of the first pulley being greater than the
2 diameter of the second pulley, whereby the rate of rotation of the take-
3 up reel 4, when driven through the belt 5 by the supply reel 3 would be
4 greater than the rate of rotation of the supply reel 3, if the take-up reel
5 were not constrained by the base tape extending from the supply reel 3,
6 past the transfer head 9, to the take-up reel 4;
7 wherein a belt guide 2 for guiding said belt is disposed between
8 the supply reel 3 and the take-up reel 4, in contact with a section of
9 the belt 5 which moves from the pulley of the supply reel to the pulley
10 of the take-up reel when the supply reel 3 rotates in said first direction.
11 Stevens
12 6. The Examiner found that Stevens (Fig. 1) describes a coating film
13 transfer tool with a supply reel 6, a take up reel 7, a transfer tape 18 with
14 coated base tape 18’, a transfer head 11, and a belt-driving mechanism (belt –
15 8). (Final Rejection 2 and Answer 3).
16 7. The Examiner found that the claimed subject matter of claim 1
17 differs from Stevens in that Stevens does not describe a belt guide. (Id.).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013