Appeal No. 2000-1470 Page 4
Application No. 08/915,706
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 5-9; reply brief, pp. 2-
6) that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree.
All the claims under appeal recite a track assembly
including a chain defined by a plurality of link members,
having a wear rail, a plurality of laterally extending pin
members, and a bushing member mounted for relative rotation
about the pin member; and an idler having teeth adapted to
engage the bushing member to substantially eliminate contact
with the wear rail. However, these limitations are not
suggested by the applied prior art for the reasons set forth2
2On page 4 of the answer, the examiner refers to a number
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007