Appeal No. 95-3141
Application No. 08/070,863
Further, for the reasons set forth by appellant [reply
brief-pages 2-3], we find that the examiner’s argument
regarding the generation of “on” and “off” signals by Aron to
be unpersuasive since even if Aron somehow could be construed
to disclose such signals, and we do not contend that Aron can
be so construed, there is clearly no detection circuitry in
Aron to detect any such “on” and “off” signals.
Turning now to the rejection of claim 5 as anticipated by
Caputo, we also will not sustain this rejection. Looking at
Figure 2 of Caputo, it is the examiner’s contention that
Caputo teaches two operating elements (tracks 76 and 78)
wherein the holes in the two tracks are misaligned in order to
detect the position of an elevator car via detection means
100, 102, 92 and 94. It is the examiner’s position that the
space between the holes is considered to be the claimed
“optical shielding plates.”
Appellant argues that Caputo does not suggest the use of
optical shielding plates disposed in a row perpendicular to
the direction of travel of the elevator car for encoding the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007