Appeal No. 1998-2082
Application 08/521,626
“spacing of the cross member 7 on the outer circumference of
the drive wheel 5” corresponds to appellant’s pin pitch Ps,
the pitch or spacing between the sprocket pins on the drive
wheel. Accordingly, the above quoted statement of Nagorcka
calls for a pin pitch Ps equal to the guide lug pitch Pc,
which would yield an up-ratio of zero. Appellant’s
specification at page 14, lines 2-4, states that “[i]f the
sprocket or drive wheel has no up-ratio [i.e., a zero up-
ratio] or has a negative up-ratio, the engaging pin first
contacts the lower portion of the driving side wall of the
guide lug . . .” (emphasis added). Hence, to the extent
Nagorcka teaches anything about the up-ratio of the drive
wheel, it teaches away from the up-ratio called for in the
appealed claims.
As to the rationale advanced by the examiner in the final
rejection in support of the standing § 103 rejection, to the
extent this rationale is predicated on the theory that the
claimed up-ratio amounts to the optimization of a result
effective variable, we also will not support the examiner’s
position. There is no teaching in the applied prior art
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007