Appeal No. 2003-1285
Application 09/751,513
Appellant’s invention is directed to a drive sprocket for
driving a modular belt having a plurality of belt modules (claims
1-8), a conveying apparatus including a modular belt and the
above-noted drive sprocket (claims 9-16), and a method of driving
a modular belt with the drive sprocket (claim 17). Independent
claims 1, 9, 16 and 17 are representative of the subject matter
on appeal and a copy of those claims may be found in the Appendix
to appellant’s brief.
The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner is:
Horton 5,921,379 Jul. 13, 1999
Claims 1 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Horton.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejection,
we refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed July 10,
2002) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11, mailed January 30,
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007