Appeal 2006-2990
Application 11/005,250
describes the ribs as remaining substantially in said “interdigitated meshing
relationship” during the curved movement of the conveyor in the conveying
plane (FF3). As Lapeyre’s Fig. 1 illustrates curved movement of the
conveyor in the conveying plane, the ribs illustrated therein must be
substantially in the “interdigitated meshing relationship” defined by
Lapeyre. Accordingly, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have inferred from Lapeyre that actual contact between ribs 20 of
adjacent links is required. Rather, such a person would have inferred only
that the ribs of adjacent links remain sufficiently close to one another to
prevent gaps between the links through which articles can fall or become
lodged (FF3).
FF7. Absent the teachings of Appellants (FF1) of transferring forces
between module members by engagement of interdigitated fingers of the
module members to distribute tension forces across the width of the chain to
thereby prevent concentration of forces on the outer most eye of the chain
links and the shear point on the hinge pin, one skilled in the art would not
have found suggestion in Lapeyre to have surfaces of the ribs 20 of adjacent
links actually engage each other to transfer forces between links.
Specifically, such contact would present a risk of binding and would not
appear to be necessary to achieve the stated purpose of Lapeyre’s ribs 20,
namely, to prevent gaps between the links through which articles can fall or
become lodged (FF6).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013