Appeal No. 2006-1653 Παγε 4
Application No. 09/840,434
not engage the sprocket for driving contact [reply brief at
pages 4 to 5].
We will also not sustain this rejection as it relates to claims 2 to 4 as these claims
by virtue of their dependence on claim 1 require that the low profile protrusions on the
sprocket and the surface on the link contact to drive the chain.
Claim 5 does not recite that a low profile sprocket protrusion contacts a surface
on the link for driving the chain but rather:
. . . the link plates defining a back-side surface that contacts
a portion of the back-side sprocket along at least a majority
of a distance substantially equal to a length of the link plates
along the chain direction
The surface F does contact a portion of the back-side sprocket (see Figures 1
and 2) and this contact is along at least a majority of the distance substantially equal to
a length of the link plates. We note that even the appellants admit that the surface F
meets the length requirement of claim 1 (see reply brief at pages 4 to 5).
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection as it is directed
to claim 5. We will also sustain the examiner’s rejection as it is directed to claims 6 and
9 because the appellants have not argued the separate patentability of these claims.
See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Ichikawa in view of Aydelott. The examiner’s findings and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007