Appeal 2006-2990
Application 11/005,250
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Lapeyre US 4,153,152 May 08, 1979
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 7,
8, 11, 12, 17, 18, and 202 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Lapeyre and claims 9 and 183 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lapeyre.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed June 9, 2006). Appellants present opposing arguments in
the Appeal Brief (filed May 22, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed July 3, 2006).
THE ISSUE
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether Lapeyre discloses first
and second module members having first and second fingers, respectively,
the first fingers having first cam surfaces and the second fingers having
second cam surfaces engaging the first cam surfaces to transfer forces
between the first and second module members. More specifically, the
decision in this appeal hinges on whether the ribs 20 of adjacent links 10 of
Lapeyre engage each other to transfer forces between the adjacent links.
The Examiner contends that Lapeyre’s ribs 20 of adjacent links 10 do
contact one another to transfer forces (Answer 4 and 5). Appellants, on the
other hand, contend that the ribs 20 of adjacent links do not cooperate with
2 The Examiner’s reference to claim “21” (Answer 3) appears to be an
inadvertent error.
3 It is not readily apparent why the Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013