Appeal No. 2003-1285
Application 09/751,513
2003) for a complete exposition of the examiner’s position and to
appellant’s brief (Paper No. 10, filed December 31, 2002) for the
arguments thereagainst.
0PINION
Having carefully reviewed the anticipation issues raised in
this appeal in light of the record before us, we have come to the
conclusion that the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will be sustained with regard to claims
1, 2 and 4 through 8, but not with regard to claims 3 and 9
through 17. Our reasoning in support of these determinations
follows.
In rejecting claims 1 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
the examiner specifically directs us to Figure 6 of the Horton
patent, urging (final rejection, page 2) that we note driving
surfaces (86) and (87) of the sprocket (84) shown therein. The
examiner then makes the following observations concerning the
drive sprocket of Figure 6:
The fact that the sprocket always has both driving surfaces
means that the sprocket inherently will drive both the
center rib and the link ends contrary to the impression
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007