Appeal 2006-2990
Application 11/005,250
FF6). Accordingly, the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and
11 cannot be predicated on Lapeyre. The rejection of claims 1 and 11, and
claims 2, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, and 20 depending from claims 1 and 11, as
anticipated by Lapeyre thus cannot be sustained.
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 (FF7). The teachings of Lapeyre are thus
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject
matter of claims 9 and 18, which depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 9 and 18 as unpatentable over Lapeyre
also cannot be sustained.
SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
hh
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
411 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 2040
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4497
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013