Appeal No. 2003-1285
Application 09/751,513
Since appellant has made no separate argument for
patentability as to any of claims 2 and 4 through 8 in the brief,
we consider that those claims will fall with claim 1 from which
they depend.
Dependent claim 3 further limits the drive sprocket of claim
1 by requiring that the plurality of teeth be arranged in pairs
and disposed “such that one of the first surfaces on a first
tooth in a first pair engages one of the ribs on a first belt
module and one of the second surfaces on a second tooth in a
second pair simultaneously engages one of the link ends on the
first belt module.” As we indicated in our discussions above,
this aspect of appellant’s claimed invention is not found in
Horton, either expressly or under principles of inherency.
Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) will not be sustained.
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on
Horton is affirmed as to claims 1, 2 and 4 through 8, but not
with regard to claims 3 and 9 through 17. Thus, the decision of
the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007