Appeal No. 1998-2082
Application 08/521,626
describe the drive lug geometry or would have been
capable of developing algorithms to express this
desired result. The particular algorithm claimed,
and the specific range of the up ratio, is nothing
more than a mathematical expression of the structure
which would provide non contact of the lug wall by
the drive pin, which structure is taught by and
would have been obvious from Nagorcka in order to
achieve track drive efficiency. [Answer, page 5].
We do not agree. Notwithstanding what one of ordinary
skill in the art may or may not deduce from the statement
found in Nagorcka at column 6, lines 46-51, that the examiner
relies upon in framing the rejection, the ordinarily skilled
artisan would not find in Nagorcka a teaching of an up-ratio
like that called for in the appealed claims when considering
the disclosure of Nagorcka in its entirety. This is brought
out by Nagorcka’s express statement at column 8, lines 20-23,
that
[t]he longitudinal spacing of the drive lugs 11
along track 9 must be identical to the spacing of
the cross member 7 on the outer circumference of the
drive wheel 5” (emphasis added).
Nagorcka’s “longitudinal spacing of the drive lugs 11 along
the track 9” corresponds to appellant’s guide lug pitch Pc,
the spacing of the guide lugs protruding inwardly from the
rubber track and engaging the sprocket pins, and Nagorcka’s
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007