Ex parte OTTEMANN - Page 2




          Appeal No. 97-2227                                                          
          Application 08/254,978                                                      




               We REVERSE and, pursuant to our authority under the                    
          provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), enter a new rejection of                   
          claims 9-13.                                                                
               The appellant’s invention pertains to a sailboat winch                 
          having four speeds at successively higher gear ratios.                      
          Independent claim 1  is further illustrative of the appealed2                                                        
          subject matter and reads as follows:                                        
               1.  A sailboat winch having four speeds at                             
               successively higher gear ratios comprising a support                   
               base, a drum rotatably mounted on said support base,                   
               a central rotary drive shaft extending within said                     
               drum, first drive means between said shaft and said                    
               drum for driving said drum at a gear ratio, first                      
               drive train means between said shaft and said drum                     
               for driving said drum in a third and fourth gear at                    
               a first location on said drum, and second drive                        
               train means between said shaft and said drum,                          
               independent of said first drive train means, for                       
               driving said drum in a second gear at a second                         
               location on said drum.                                                 
               The references relied on by the examiner are:                          
          Atfield et al. (Atfield)      4,725,043           Feb. 16, 1988             
          Dudden              GB 2 109 489             Jun. 02, 1983                  


               Notwithstanding the examiner’s statement on page 3 of the answer that2                                                                     
          the copy of the claims in the appendix to the brief “is correct,” we note that
          in claim 1 (as reproduced in this appendix) “said second drive train means” 
          should be -- and second drive train means --.                               
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007