Appeal No. 2000-2129
Application No. 09/090,583
choice,” and that (4) the modified 48 mm chain of Grundken would have a strength at least equal to
that of a size 48 standard link chain.
Our difficulty with the examiner’s position as set forth in the answer is that even if we were
to agree with the examiner on each of the above noted points (1) through (4), it is not apparent to us
that the claimed subject matter as a whole would result. This is so because the examiner has not
accounted for the argued limitation of the independent claims that the vertical links have a pitch (t1)
that is approximately equal to three times the second diameter (d) of the circular cross-section of the
nose parts of the vertical links, plus or minus 5 mm. In this regard we note, as did the previous
merits panel in their remand (see Paper No. 22, page 2, footnote 1), that while the examiner
determined (see page 5, lines 5-9 of the answer) that the pitch of the vertical links in Braun is
approximately 3 times the 42 mm diameter of the nose parts of the vertical links, the examiner has
not addressed how or why this disclosure would meet this limitation within the context of the
claimed invention as a whole. More particularly, the examiner does not appear to rely on Grundken
for a teaching of this limitation, and the examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent to us,
how and why the disclosure of Braun noted by the examiner on page 5 of the answer would have
suggested providing Grundken’s chain with a similar relationship, especially when the examiner
also proposes making a number of changes to the chain of Grundken (see points (1) through (4)
above) that would presumably impact on the geometry of the vertical links of Grundken’s chain.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007