Ex parte JENSEN - Page 7




                 Appeal No. 2000-1633                                                                                     Page 7                        
                 Application No. 08/994,159                                                                                                             


                 inserts 20c since each insert is a curved device used to catch                                                                         
                 or engage a bushing of the track for track driving purposes.                                                                           
                 Furthermore, the claimed language that the bogies are                                                                                  
                 pivotally connected to the wheel is, in our view, clearly                                                                              
                 inherent in the embodiment of Durand's drive sprocket shown in                                                                         
                 Figure 7 since each insert 20c is connected to the drive                                                                               
                 sprocket 10c by a single pin 33.  The provision of the                                                                                 
                 oversized apertures 34 and the cushioning means 27c would                                                                              
                 inherently permit a limited amount of pivotable movement of                                                                            
                 the inserts 20c with respect to the sprocket 10c.                                                                                      
                 Accordingly, Durand's inserts 20c are pivotally connected to                                                                           
                 the sprocket 10c.                                                                                                                      


                          After the USPTO establishes a prima facie case of                                                                             
                 anticipation based on inherency, the burden shifts to the                                                                              
                 appellant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the                                                                          
                 prior art does not possess the characteristics of the claimed                                                                          
                 invention.  See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964,                                                                         
                 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231                                                                             

                          1(...continued)                                                                                                               
                 fasten something."                                                                                                                     







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007