Appeal No. 1998-2082
Application 08/521,626
Opinion
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and
claims , to the applied prior art references, and to the4
respective positions articulated by appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have concluded
that the examiner’s rejection cannot be sustained. Our
reasons follow.
Independent claim 21 calls for a drive wheel having an
up-ratio in the range of about 0.5% to about 4.0%
enabling an engaging sprocket pin to enter between
adjacent guide lugs without contacting either the
driving wall or the braking wall of the adjacent
guide lugs, to subsequently move toward and engage
the driving wall of one of said adjacent guide lugs
to drive the one adjacent guide lug, and to
disengage the one adjacent guide lug as the drive
wheel rotates. [Emphasis added.]
4In claim 14, next to the last line, there is no proper
antecedent for “said annular rings” (plural). In claim 23,
“up-ratio, U ” (both instances) should be “up-ratio, Ur” for
r
consistency with the remainder of the disclosure and to avoid
confusion with the term “practical up-ratio, U ” of claim 24.
r
Likewise, the terms “P ” and “P ” in claim 23 should be changeds c
to “Ps” and “Pc”, respectively, for consistency with the
remainder of the disclosure. In the event of further
prosecution, it would be appropriate to correct these
deficiencies.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007