Appeal No. 2000-2129
Application No. 09/090,583
In arguing against the rejections advanced by the examiner in the final rejection, appellants
argue, among other things, that the combination of references cited against the claims “does not
disclose, suggest, or make obvious a scraper chain having . . . a pitch equal to three times the
diameter of the circular cross-section of the nose-parts of the vertical links” (appeal brief, paragraph
spanning pages 6-7). Appellants also argue that Braun “has no discussion of this relationship
because obviously Braun did not consider that this relationship has any bearing on the workings of
his invention” (reply brief, page 4).4
We have carefully considered the examiner’s position in rejecting the appealed claims as
being unpatentable over Grundken in view of Braun. In particular, we have noted the examiner’s
position as expressed on page 8 of the answer that it would have been obvious in view of the
teachings of Braun to have provided the chain of Grundken with horizontal links having (1) a pitch
at least 10% greater than the pitch of the vertical links and (2) an outer width approximately 30%
greater than the outer width of the vertical links. The examiner also posits that (3) the limitation of
the 48 mm circular diameter for the horizontal links would have been an obvious matter of “design
4This argument in the reply brief was one of several made therein that necessitated this
application being remanded back to the examiner (see Paper No. 22) for the purpose of issuing a
supplemental examiner’s answer to respond to the arguments presented by appellants. In
replying to that remand (see Paper No. 24), the examiner withdrew the rejection of the appealed
claims as being unpatentable over Braun in view of Grundken, but declined to present any
additional rationale in support of the remaining rejection of the appealed claims as being
unpatentable over Grundken in view of Braun.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007