Appeal No. 2003-1285
Application 09/751,513
simultaneous engagement or driving as set forth in the claims
discussed above and as argued by appellant in the brief. Claim 1
is directed to the drive sprocket per se and merely defines a
sprocket having a plurality of teeth disposed around its
perimeter and disposed such that one of the first surfaces on a
first tooth engages one of the ribs on a first belt module and
one of the second surfaces on a second tooth engages one of the
link ends on the first belt module. Figure 6 of Horton clearly
shows such a drive sprocket for driving a modular belt. The
drive sprocket (84) of Horton includes a plurality of teeth
disposed around its perimeter and disposed such that one of the
first surfaces (87) on a first tooth engages one of the ribs or
connecting members (74, 75) on a first belt module and one of the
second surfaces (86) on a second tooth engages one of the link
ends (e.g., 88) on the first belt module, depending on which of
the alternative drive arrangements is selected. Nothing in claim
1 on appeal requires the first belt module to be engaged at two
different points by two different teeth at the same time.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007