Appeal No. 95-3141
Application No. 08/070,863
Aron 3,983,961 Oct. 5,
1976
Caputo et al. (Caputo) 4,433,756 Feb. 28, 1984
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(b) as
anticipated by Aron. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
102(b) as anticipated by Caputo.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We will not sustain any of the rejections under 35 U.S.C.
102(b) as, in our view, the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of anticipation.
Turning first to the rejection of claims 2 and 3, the
examiner contends that Aron anticipates the claimed subject
matter. The examiner points to two operating devices, P1 and
P2, in Aron and that these devices are arranged in a row up
the hoistway and such that one of them is misaligned with the
other.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007