Appeal No. 2003-1285
Application 09/751,513
given by the use of “Alternatively” in the detailed
description. Note figure 6 shows simultaneous driving by
both surfaces.
While appellant appears to be in agreement with the examiner
that the drive sprocket (84) seen in Figure 6 of the Horton
patent includes a plurality of rows of teeth having driving
surfaces (86) and (87) thereon, appellant strongly contends that
Figure 6 does not show the “simultaneous driving by both
surfaces” as asserted by the examiner in the final rejection and
concludes that “[b]ecause Horton does not disclose the
simultaneous engagement of the first center driving surface with
the rib and the engagement of the second link end driving surface
with the link end of the same belt module, Horton does not
anticipate claims 1-17" (brief, page 5).
We agree with appellant that there is no teaching or
suggestion in the Horton patent of a conveying apparatus and
method like that defined in claims 9 through 17 on appeal,
because Horton does not show or teach 1) a drive sprocket having
a plurality of teeth disposed around its perimeter wherein said
teeth are constructed in the manner required in claims 9 through
17 on appeal and disposed “such that one of the first surfaces on
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007