Appeal No. 97-2227
Application 08/254,978
instance, however, we are of the opinion that the rejection of
claims 9-11 cannot be sustained on the basis of those portions
of the subject matter defined by these claims that we can
understand. Additionally, with respect to claims 12 and 13,
in an effort to avoid piecemeal appellate review (see Ex parte
Saceman, 27 USPQ2d 1472, 1474 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993) and
Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537, 540 (Bd. App. 1984)), we make
the following interpretations of the terminology appearing in
these claims for the purpose of reaching the rejections based
on prior art. In claim 12, lines 4 and 7, we interpret
“common drive train means” to be -- partially common drive
train means --.
Turning specifically to the rejections based on prior
art, the examiner concedes that Atfield does not teach a
second drive means that is independent of the first drive
train means (independent claim 1) or a second gear drive train
means that is separate and independent of a “partially” common
drive train means (independent claim 12) but, nevertheless,
takes the position that
It is desired that a winch be efficient per turn of
the main drive shaft. A second drive train having a
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007