Appeal No. 1999-1063
Application No. 08/402,498
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we conclude that
none of the rejections can be sustained.
Considering first the § 102 rejection of claims 15, 16,
18 and 19 based on Cox, we find that Cox discloses a hoist
having a casing 1, an electric motor 32 within the casing 1, a
shaft 34 driven by the motor 32 and a cable 2 coiled on the
shaft 34 to which is attached a harness (page 1, lines 44-48).
The shaft 34 is rotated by the motor 32 to wind and unwind the
cable through a first drive train comprising gears 36, 38, 40
and 42 (page 2, lines 1-5). Operation of the motor also
causes rotation of a second shaft 58, corresponding to a worm
gear, via a gear train including gears 36, 38, 40, 70, 68 and
66 (page 2, lines 88-91). Rotation of shaft 58 controls the
position of a housing 56 and a switch actuating arm 52. Shaft
58 is designed such that the housing 56 and switch actuating
arm 52 will reach a position to open a switch 50, thus,
shutting off the motor, when the cable is completely unwound
(page 2, lines 100-108).
It is the examiner’s position that the shaft 58 in Cox
corresponds to appellant’s claimed “worm gear mechanism” and
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007