Ex Parte Becella

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 19, 2010

10472840 (B.P.A.I. May. 19, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MARION BECELLA
____________________

Appeal 2009-006876
Application 10/472,840
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Decided: May 19, 2010
____________________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, KEN B. BARRETT, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Marion Becella (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2002).

Appeal 2009-006876
Application 10/472,840

2
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a drive belt having a
woven fabric traction layer (Spec. 1: 3-12).
Claims 1, 19 and 20, reproduced below, are representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. Drive belt having as a traction layer a woven
fabric, which comprises exactly two layers of
woven fabric, which are interlaced together,
wherein the woven fabric contains weft threads
and warp threads which are multifilaments, and
wherein at least one of the woven fabric layers has
a plain weave, a derived plain weave, a mixed
plain weave or a satin weave.

19. A method of using a drive belt for driving a
machine, the method comprising:
providing a drive belt having as a traction
layer a woven fabric, which comprises exactly two
layers of woven fabric, which are interlaced
together, wherein the woven fabric contains weft
threads and warp threads which are multifilaments,
and wherein at least one of the woven fabric layers
has a plain weave, a derived plain weave, a mixed
plain weave or a satin weave;
bringing the drive belt in force-transmitting
engagement with the machine to be driven; and,
driving the drive belt.

20. A drive belt, comprising:
a traction layer with exactly two layers of
woven fabric being interlaced together, wherein
the woven fabric contains weft threads and warp
Appeal 2009-006876
Application 10/472,840

3
threads which are multifilaments, the traction layer
being provided with a coating selected from the
group consisting of rubber and a rubber-like
thermoplastic material;
wherein at least one of the woven fabric
layers has a plain weave, a derived plain weave, a
mixed plain weave or a satin weave.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Habegger US 4,767,389 Aug. 30, 1988
Tate US 4,821,780 Apr. 18, 1989

Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art in the Specification (Spec.1: 1-Spec. 2: 4)
(hereinafter referred to as the “Instant Specification”1)

The following rejections2 by the Examiner are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tate in view of the Instant Specification.
2. Claims 7 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tate in view of the Instant Specification, and
further in view of Habegger.

1 Both Appellant (App. Br. 3, 7) and the Examiner (Ans. 3) refer to the
portion of Appellant’s Specification deemed by the Examiner to be admitted
prior art as the “Instant Specification.” We will do the same in this appeal.
2 The rejection of claims 1, 3, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Tate, as set forth in the Final Rejection mailed December 11,
2007 (Final Rejection 2), has been withdrawn and is, therefore, not part of
this appeal (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2009-006876
Application 10/472,840

4
ISSUES
The issues before us are: (1) whether the Examiner erred in finding
that Tate’s woven fabric wire is a drive belt as recited in claims 1, 19 and 20
(App. Br. 5); (2) whether the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combined teachings of Tate and the Instant Specification would have led a
person having ordinary skill in the art to a woven fabric drive belt
comprising threads which are multifilaments as called for in claim 1 (App.
Br. 7); and (3) whether the Examiner erred in concluding that the combined
teachings of Tate and the Instant Specification would have led a person
having ordinary skill in the art to a woven fabric drive belt having a rubber
coated traction layer as called for in claim 20 (App. Br. 6, 9).

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
Appellant’s Specification
1. Appellant’s Specification describes in the background of the
invention that:
[t]he term “belt” is used herein as a collective
term for drive belts, conveyor belts and
process belts.
The traction layer of a belt, especially of a
drive belt, frequently consists . . . of a woven
fabric. This traction layer is rubber coated.
. . . .
Appeal 2009-006876
Application 10/472,840

5
The woven fabric can be produced from all
known types of yarn, such as for example
multifilaments, monofilaments . . .
(Spec. 1: 2-13 and Spec. 2: 1-3).
2. One of Appellant’s objects is to provide a drive belt that permits a
large transmission of force and remains flexible (Spec. 2: 23-28).
The Examiner’s Findings
3. The Examiner finds that Tate describes a papermaker’s fabric wire
used to convey the paper making materials through the process
(Ans. 4).
4. The Examiner finds that “[p]apermaker’s fabrics are known to be
used in endless belt form and travel around rollers.” (Ans. 4).
5. The Examiner finds that “[a] papermaker’s fabric could be broadly
considered a ‘drive belt’ as recited, as the fabric does transmit
driving motion from a driving roller to a non-driven roller.” (Ans.
4).
6. The Examiner finds that:
[t]he papermaker’s fabric in Tate is used as a
belt to both convey and as a process belt in the
papermaking process. Also rollers around
which the fabric is wrapped drive the belt. The
papermaker’s fabric disclosed is clearly a
“drive belt” by both appellant’s own definition
and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
term “drive belt.”
(Ans. 6-7).
7. The Examiner finds that Tate describes essentially all of the
limitations called for in the claims; except that Tate does not
describe the use of multifilaments (Ans. 5).
Appeal 2009-006876
Application 10/472,840

6
8. The Examiner finds that Appellant’s Instant Specification “in the
discussion of the background of the invention, clearly teaches the
widely known and practiced use of all types of yarns monofilament
and multifilament in woven belt fabrics.” 3 (Ans. 5).
9. The Examiner finds in regards to claim 20 that (a) the portion of
the fabric that contacts the rollers is considered the claimed
traction layer (Ans. 4), and (b) the coating layer called for in the
claim is admitted as prior art by Appellant (Ans. 5).
The Board’s Findings
10. Tate describes a multi-layer fabric for papermaking having at least
two layers formed by interweaving warp and wefts with each
other, wherein the uppermost layer is adapted to support a paper
slurry thereon (col. 3, ll. 1-23).
11. Tate further describes that the multi-layer fabric has mesh
openings for even drainage, wherein the lower-most layer may be
rigidly woven to maintain the runnability of the fabric and wear
resistance (col. 5, l. 21-col. 6, l. 3).
12. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a
conveyor belt usually comprises a belt as a continuous loop of
material that is rotatable about at least two rollers or rolling shafts,

3 Kositzke (U.S. Patent No. 4,909,284, issued Mar. 20, 1990), referred to by
Appellant (App. Br. 8) and the Examiner (Ans. 7), further supports the
Examiner’s finding that it is old and well known in the papermaking art to
have a wire made from multilayered fabric, wherein the weave selected for
the wire may be a two layer weave of synthetic yarns such as multifilament
or monofilament yarns (col. 2, ll. 33-35) and the wire is in the form of an
endless belt 30 (fig. 4).
Appeal 2009-006876
Application 10/472,840

7
wherein one of the rollers or rolling shafts is powered and at least
one of the other rollers or rolling shafts is non-powered.
13. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a
belt in a conveyor belt is a drive belt since the belt is capable of
transferring power from a powered roller or rolling shaft to a non-
powered roller or rolling shaft, wherein the non-powered roller or
rolling shaft is a machine or machine part.
14. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
lower-most portion of a belt that contacts rollers or rolling shafts is
a traction layer, and that rubber or a rubber coating would improve
traction between the rollers and the belt.
15. The ordinary meaning of the word “drive” includes “the means for
giving motion to a machine or a machine part.” MERRIAM-
WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th ed. 1999).
16. The ordinary meaning of the word “belt” includes “a continuous
band of tough flexible material for transmitting motion and power
or conveying materials.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE
DICTIONARY (10th ed. 1999).
17. Additional findings as necessary appear in the Analysis portion of
this opinion.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
Appeal 2009-006876
Application 10/472,840

8
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3)
the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See
also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be
reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the
inquiry that controls.”).
In KSR, the Supreme Court stated that “when a patent claims a
structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere
substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination
must do more than yield a predictable result.” Id. at 416 (citing United
States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966)).
In KSR, the Supreme Court held that “if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550
U.S. at 417.
In KSR, the Supreme Court stated that:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to
interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the
effects of demands known to the design
community or present in the marketplace; and the
background knowledge possessed by a person
having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to
determine whether there was an apparent reason to
Appeal 2009-006876
Application 10/472,840

9
combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed by the patent at issue.

Id. at 418. The Court noted that “[t]o facilitate review, this analysis should
be made explicit.” Id. (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”)). However, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.

Claim Construction
When construing claim terminology in the United States Patent and
Trademark Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim language in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-6, 8-13, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tate in view of the Instant Specification
Appellant argues claims 1-6 and 8-13 as a group (App. Br. 7). As
such, we select claim 1 as representative of the group, and claims 2-6 and 8-
13 will stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Appellant argues claim 19 and 20 separately (App. Br. 6-8).
Appeal 2009-006876
Application 10/472,840

10

Claims 1-6 and 8-13
Appellant contends that (1) Tate’s papermaker’s fabric is not a drive
belt as called for in claim 1, as a drive belt is used to enable power
transmission from a source to a machine (App. Br. 5); and (2) a person
having ordinary skill would never use Tate’s papermaker’s fabric as a drive
belt to transmit power (App. Br. 5).
The Examiner found that (1) Tate’s papermaker fabric wire is used to
convey paper making materials (Fact 3, see also Fact 10); (2)
“[p]apermaker’s fabrics are known to be used in endless belt form and travel
around rollers” (Fact 4); and (3) that “[a] papermaker’s fabric could be
broadly considered a ‘drive belt’ as recited, as the fabric does transmit
driving motion from a driving roller to a non-driven roller.” (Facts 5-6).
Initially, we will construe the meaning of the claim term “drive belt.”
The ordinary meaning of the word “drive” includes “the means for giving
motion to a machine or a machine part.” (Fact 15). The ordinary meaning of
the word “belt” includes “a continuous band of tough flexible material for
transmitting motion and power or conveying materials.” (Fact 16).
Appellant’s object of providing a drive belt that permits a large transmission
of force and remains flexible (Fact 2), is consistent with this ordinary
meaning.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the phrase
“drive belt,” as called for in independent claim 1 in light of the ordinary
meanings of the words used in the phrase, to refer to a continuous band of
material for transmitting motion and power to a machine or machine part.
See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
Appeal 2009-006876
Application 10/472,840

11
(When construing claim terminology in the United States Patent and
Trademark Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim language in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art.).
Appellant has not contested the Examiner’s finding that Tate’s
papermaker’s fabric is in the form of a conveyor belt (see Fact 4)4.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand (1) that a
conveyor belt usually comprises a belt as a continuous loop of material that
is rotatable about at least two rollers or rolling shafts, wherein one of the
rollers or rolling shafts is powered and at least one of the other rollers or
rolling shafts is non-powered (Fact 12), and that a belt in a conveyor belt is a
drive belt since the belt is capable of transfering power from the powered
roller or rolling shaft to the non-powered roller or rolling shaft, wherein the
non-powered roller or rolling shaft is a machine or machine part (Fact 13).
Therefore, we find that Tate describes a drive belt as recited in claim
1.
Appellant further contends that the fact that Appellant’s Specification
states in the background that multifilaments have been used for woven
fabrics in a traction layer of drive belts does not make it obvious to use them
in a papermaker’s fabric. (App. Br. 7).
The Examiner found that, while Tate describes the use of
monofilaments and not multifilaments as called for in claim 1 in a
papermaker’s fabric (Fact 7), the Instant Specification describes the use of

4 See also Footnote 3.
Appeal 2009-006876
Application 10/472,840

12
monofilaments or multifilaments in woven belt fabrics. (Fact 8, see also
Fact 1).
Tate describes a woven fabric drive belt formed from monofilament
yarns (Fact 10).
Appellant’s Specification describes that woven fabric in belts could be
produced by monofilament or multifilament yarns. (Fact 1). This
description implies that a multifilament yarn could have been simply
substituted for a monofilament yarn when making a drive belt.
We conclude that it would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tate and the Instant
Specification by substituting for Tate’s monofilament yarns the
multifilament yarns as taught by the Instant Specification (Fact 1). The
Appellant provides no reason why such a substitution would have been
beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art or why the substitution might
have done more than yield a predictable result. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416
(holding that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art
that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in
the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”).
Therefore, we conclude that Appellant has not demonstrated that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over Tate in view the Instant
Specification. Appellant has likewise not demonstrated error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-6 and 8-13, which stand or fall with claim
1.

Appeal 2009-006876
Application 10/472,840

13
Claim 19
Appellant contends that Tate does not describe a drive belt as called
for by the steps of claim 19 (App. Br. 6).
The Examiner found that Tate describes a drive belt (Facts 3-6).
For the same reasons we previously found regarding claim 1, supra,
we find that Tate describes a drive belt.
Therefore, for the same reasons we previously found regarding claim
1, supra, we conclude that Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 19 over Tate in view the Instant Specification.

Claim 20
Appellant contends that Tate does not describe a drive belt or provide
a traction layer with a coating selected from the group consisting of rubber
and a rubber-like thermoplastic material as called for in claim 20 (App. Br.
6). Appellant further contends that since the water draining function is
essential for Tate’s papermaker’s fabric, coating Tate’s papermaker’s fabric
with rubber or a rubber-like thermoplastic material would destroy the
fabric’s water shedding functionality (App. Br. 9).
The Examiner found that Tate describes a drive belt (Facts 3-6). The
Examiner further found that (1) the coating layer called for in claim 20 is
admitted as prior art by Appellant, and (2) the portion of the fabric that
contacts the rollers is considered the claimed traction layer (Fact 9).
For the same reasons we previously found regarding claim 1, supra,
we find that Tate describes a drive belt.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
portion of a belt that contacts rollers or rolling shafts is a traction layer, and
Appeal 2009-006876
Application 10/472,840

14
that rubber or a rubber coating would provide considerable traction between
the rollers and the belt (Fact 14).
Tate describes that the multi-layer fabric has mesh openings for even
drainage (Fact 11).
We find that when Tate’s woven fabric belt is provided with a rubber
coating, only the yarns, not the mesh spaces between the yarns, need be
coated. Further, we find that to provide considerable traction between Tate’s
woven fabric belt and the rollers, only the part of the yarns that contact the
rollers need be coated. Therefore, we find that Tate’s woven fabric driven
belt when coated with rubber could still maintain its mesh openings for
drainage (see Facts 10-11).
We conclude that it would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tate and the Instant
Specification by providing Tate’s yarns with a coating of rubber where the
yarns contact the rollers as taught by the Instant Specification. (See Fact 1).
We find that providing Tate’s yarns with a coating of rubber only
where the yarns contact the rollers could have been reasonably predicted to
yield the result of improving traction between the rollers and the yarn of the
belt. No reason is apparent why providing such a coating would have been
beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417
(holding that “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).
Appeal 2009-006876
Application 10/472,840

15
Therefore, we conclude that Appellant has not demonstrated that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over Tate in view the Instant
Specification.

Rejection of claims 7 and 14-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tate in view of the Instant Specification, and further in
view of Habegger
In contesting the rejection of claims 7 and 14-18, Appellant simply
relies on the contentions made with respect to the rejection of claim 1 (App.
Br. 9). We previously found that Appellant’s contentions regarding the
rejection of claim 1 are not persuasive. Therefore, we conclude that
Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7
and 14-18 over Tate in view of the Instant Specification, and further in view
of Habegger.

CONCLUSIONS
Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred in finding that
Tate’s woven fabric wire is a drive belt as recited in claims 1, 19 and 20.
Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred in concluding
that the combined teachings of Tate and the Instant Specification would have
led a person having ordinary skill in the art to a woven fabric drive belt
comprising threads which are multifilaments as called for in claim 1.
Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred in concluding
that the combined teachings of Tate and the Instant Specification would have
led a person having ordinary skill in the art to a woven fabric drive belt
having a rubber coated traction layer as called for in claim 20.

Appeal 2009-006876
Application 10/472,840

16
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED

Klh

HODGSON RUSS LLP
THE GUARANTY BUILDING
140 PEARL STREET
SUITE 100
BUFFALO, NY 14202-4040