Appeal No. 2005-1716
Application No. 10/200,903
This contention is not well founded.
The basic deficiency of the examiner’s rationale is that it
is premised on the belief that “the keeper is a surface that is
being possessed by the track structure in a unitary composition”
(id.). In accordance with our detailed explanation above, it is
not reasonable or rational to consider the surface of Block’s
keeper to be the surface of a track regardless of whether these
mechanical elements are regarded as integral or unitary.
All of the appealed claims are limited in the manner
previously discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Further, the aforenoted deficiency of the examiner’s Section
102 rejection is not cured via his Section 103 rejection.
As a consequence, we cannot sustain the examiner’s Section
102 rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 9-11 and 17 as being anticipated
by Block or his Section 103 rejection of claim 12 as being
unpatentable over Block in view of Fort.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007