Appeal No. 2006-0848
Application No. 09/981,231
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 19 as anticipated by Abe. We agree
with the examiner that the unnumbered protrusions shown in figure 3 of Abe, that grasp
the
rails 1a, are part of the carriage and are grooves configured to accept the vertical strips
1a when the term “grooves” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 24
In addition to arguments considered above, appellant argues that Abe does not
disclose a carriage including a pivot ring configured to accept a wind powered generator
therein [brief, page 16-17].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 24 as anticipated by Abe. The
carriage of Abe (mount 12) does not include a pivot ring. The carriage as identified by
the examiner (mount 12 plus support member 6) is not properly identified as an elevator
carriage for reasons discussed above with respect to claim 9.
We now consider the rejection of claims 18 and 19 as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Willis. The examiner has indicated how the invention of these claims is
deemed to be fully met by the disclosure of Willis [answer, pages 4-5]. With respect to
claim 18, appellant argues that although Willis shows
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007