Appeal No. 2004-2071
Application No. 09/893,109
THE PRIOR ART
The reference relied on by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness is:
Japanese Patent Document1 7-83290 Mar. 28, 1995
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the Japanese reference.
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 14 and 16) and to the final rejection and answer (Paper Nos.
9 and 15) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.2
DISCUSSION
The Japanese reference discloses a roller chain designed to
operate in high speed, large load environments in a noise
suppressing and durable manner. Using the terminology employed
in appealed claim 1, the prior art chain comprises inner and
1 The record contains a “machine-assisted” English language
translation of this reference prepared on behalf of the USPTO and
presumably provided to the appellants. Although this “machine-
assisted” translation is sufficient in this case to convey the
fair teachings of the reference, such purpose would be better
served with a translation produced by a qualified human
translator.
2 In the final rejection, claim 3 stood rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based on a non-enabling
specification. Upon consideration of the appellants’ main brief,
the examiner withdrew this rejection (see page 3 in the answer).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007