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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007