Appeal 2007-2419
Application 10/681,413
1 E. Analysis
2 Applicants argue claims 1-3 together as a group. Applicants
3 acknowledge that Stevens describes everything but the claimed belt guide
4 (FF 23). Applicants apparently agree that Masahiko describes a “belt guide,”
5 but that the belt guide is on the wrong side of the belt (FF 24). Applicants
6 argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to
7 put the Masahiko “belt guide” 17 on the side of the belt that moves from the
8 supply reel to the take-up reel. Applicants opine that if the Masahiko torque
9 varying mechanism were placed on the side of the belt that moves from the
10 supply reel to the take-up reel, that part of “its range of motion would be
11 utilized merely in taking up the slack created” when the tool is operated.
12 Applicants argue that as a result, the torque varying mechanism would be less
13 effective in controlling slippage of the belt and would not be expected to
14 adjust slip satisfactorily (FF 24).
15 Applicants have failed to direct us to evidence to support the assertions
16 made. The Examiner found that there is nothing in the Masahiko reference
17 itself that would tend to support Applicants’ theory (FF 25). Although
18 Masahiko does not appear to expressly describe placing the roller 17 on the
19 side of the belt that travels from supply reel to take-up reel, Masahiko
20 describes placing the roller in different locations along the belt (FFs 16 and
21 17). One having ordinary skill in the art would understand the interplay of
22 the forces involved in tensioning the belt and balancing the forces between
23 the supply reel and the take-up reel in the Masahiko transfer tool. Therefore,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013