Ex Parte Adifon et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2006-0004                                                               Παγε 2                
              Application No. 09/497,359                                                                               



                                                   BACKGROUND                                                          
                     The appellants' invention relates to elevators and, more specifically, to an                      
              elevator system structural support for providing reaction forces to bolt tension and                     
              moment forces associated with elevator components attached to a building structure                       
              (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to                
              the appellants' brief.                                                                                   


                     Claims 1 to 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                    
              U.S. Patent No. 5,899,300 to Miller et al. (Miller) in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,395,777 to              
              Rodosta.                                                                                                 


                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                     
              the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer                      
              (mailed March 22, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the                          
              rejection, and to the brief (filed March 17, 2004) and reply brief (filed May 26, 2005) for              
              the appellants' arguments thereagainst.                                                                  


                                                      OPINION                                                          
                     In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                   
              the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007