Appeal No. 1999-1063
Application No. 08/402,498
expressed above with regard to claims 2 through 7, 11, 21 and
23 leads us to a like conclusion, that is, the teachings of
Cox fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to claim 22, and the rejection of that claim cannot be
sustained.
Finally, we will also not sustain the standing § 103
rejection of claim 20 based on Cox and O’Neil. Even assuming
that it would have been obvious, in view of O’Neil to provide
Cox’s hoist with a support member comprising a pair of short
pants attached to a belt as recited in claim 20, the rejected
claim would still distinguish over the prior art applied in
that it would not have been obvious to replace the gear train
comprising gears 36, 38, 40 and 42, operably coupling the
motor 32 to the shaft 34, with a worm gear mechanism, as
discussed above.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
Frankel discloses a fire escape device having: a housing4
or casing 10a; straps 28 and 29 and a body belt 30 coupled to
4U.S. Patent No. 2,721,685 to Frankel was cited by the examiner as
being pertinent to applicant’s disclosure in the Office action mailed July 5,
1996 (Paper No. 2).
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007