Appeal No. 2003-1285
Application 09/751,513
the present case, the examiner’s theory of simultaneous
engagement is clearly not the natural result flowing from the
operation of the driving sprocket (84) as taught in Horton. In
fact, as appellant has pointed out in the brief (page 6), Horton
specifically refers to the use of driving surfaces (87) to engage
the connecting members (74, 75) of the belt modules therein as
being an alternative to the use of the driving surfaces (86) to
engage undercut portions (88, 89) on the ends of the hinge
elements (col. 6, lines 34-57).
Since the examiner has not demonstrated that all the
limitations of appellant’s independent claims 9, 16 and 17 are
found in Horton, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, it follows that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of anticipation, and that the examiner's
rejection of claims 9, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will
not be sustained. It likewise follows that the examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 10 through 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) relying on Horton will not be sustained.
As for the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Horton, we will sustain that
rejection because claim 1 does not include the requirement for
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007