Appeal No. 2006-1653 Παγε 5
Application No. 09/840,434
conclusions regarding this rejection can be found on page 3 of the final rejection and
page 4 of the answer.
The appellants argue that the toothed surfaces of Aydelott are not generally flat.
We do not find this argument persuasive because the back side surface of both
the Ichikawa sprocket surface (see 6A in Figure 1) and contact surfaces of the sprocket
are flat at the teeth in Adelott.
Appellants also argue that Aydelott does not disclose a link plates forming
interleaved rows as and two teeth on one side of the chain and a back side surface that
engages a sprocket required by claims 7 and 8.
We do not find this argument persuasive because the examiner relies on
Ichikawa for teaching interleaved link rows that engage a sprocket. Moreover, “[n]on-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants also argue that Aydelott does not describe a sprocket with flat
surfaces that meet to form low profile protrusions as required by claim 6 from which
claims 7 and 8 depend.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007