Appeal No. 2006-1653 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/840,434
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Ichikawa. We initially note that to support a rejection of
a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art
reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781,
789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984). The examiner’s finding
regarding this rejection can be found on 2 of the final rejection.
In regard to the recitation in claim 1 of the surface on the link which overlies low
profile sprocket protrusions along at least a majority of the length of the surface for
driving contact with the low profile protrusions, the examiner finds:
The Ichikawa references meets the limitations of the claims,
because the inner surface of the chain that contacts the
sprocket surface contacts more than half of the contact
surface. In column 4 lines 20 to 33 Ichikawa discloses that
the low profile teeth of the sprocket 6" abut and support the
flat faces F.” Figure 1 shows the low profile protrusion
contacting more than half the contact surface F of the chain
[answer at page 3].
We will not sustain this rejection as to claim 1 because, in our view, the flat faces
F do not have a driving contact with the protrusions 6A, as required by claim 1. We
agree with the appellants that:
The chain of Ichikawa is driven by the guide plates 7 and the
articular train plates 2A that have sub-teeth that engage the
teeth (protrusions) of the sprocket. Ichikawa col. 4 lines 1-5.
The surface F of plate 3 has no such sub-teeth and does
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007