Ex Parte Guernsey

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 28, 2010

11160224 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte KEVIN W. GUERNSEY
____________________

Appeal 2009-007962
Application 11/160,224
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, WILLIAM F. PATE III, and
MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007962
Application 11/160,224
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
9, 11, 12, 16 and 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to plastic conveyor belts and modules with
lateral channels. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A conveyor belt module for building a modular
conveyor belt capable of being driven in a direction of belt
travel, the module comprising:
a module body extending longitudinally in the direction
of belt travel from a first end to a second end, laterally from a
first edge to a second edge, and in thickness from a conveying
surface to an opposite surface;
hinge structure in the form of laterally spaced apart
projections extending longitudinally outward from the first and
second ends of the module body;
wherein the opposite surface is contoured with two
lateral depressions forming channels extending laterally from
the first edge to the second edge of the module body between
the first and second ends;
a ridge disposed laterally from the first edge to the
second edge between the two lateral depressions and forming
the tallest structure extending outward of the opposite surface
between the first and second ends.

REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Momose US 4,776,454 Oct. 11, 1988
Appeal 2009-007962
Application 11/160,224
3
REJECTION
Claims 1-9, 11, 12, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Momose. Ans. 3.

OPINION
We are in agreement with Appellant that Momose does not disclose
hinge structure in the form of laterally spaced apart projections. Br. 12. As
far as we can determine, the Examiner has not made a finding that Momose
discloses this specific claim element. The Examiner’s bulleted list of the
structure of Momose only refers to Momose as having a hinge structure
extending longitudinally outward from the first and second ends of the
module body. See, e.g., Ans. 3.
Additionally, the Examiner has not responded to Appellant’s
argument that Momose does not have laterally spaced apart projections. The
Examiner’s Answer appears to be non-responsive to this portion of
Appellant’s Brief. Accordingly, it is our finding that claims 1-9, 11, 12, 16
and 17 do not lack novelty over the Momose disclosure, since Momose does
not disclose hinge structure in the form of laterally spaced apart projections.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9, 11, 12, 16, and 17 is
reversed.
REVERSED
nlk
LAITRAM, L.L.C.
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
200 LAITRAM LANE
HARAHAN LA 70123