Appeal No. 1997-2162
Application 08/280,430
and the rejection of claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Gary, Shah, Grove, and Hugh.
Turning to the rejection of claims 20 and 21, we note
that Appellants’ claims 20 and 21 recite the same limitations
present in claim 7. Appellants provide arguments related to
the first and the second circuits being powered by a DC source
which is similar to those presented for claim 7. In view of
the above discussions related to the rejection of claims 7, 8,
and 10 through 16, we reverse the rejection of claims 20 and
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gary, Shah, and Grove.
In regard to the rejection of claim 18, Appellants on
pages 12 and 13 of the brief argue that neither Gary nor
Schauder teach that the stage height sensor switch can be
located at any height and the lift can be stopped “at any
point within a continuous range of movement.” Appellants add
that Schauder’s cam is different from the Appellants’ knob
which does not require that the car be at a precise distance
from the stage. Appellants on page 12 further state that
Schauder is concerned with the movement of an elevator car in
the shaft and does not have the surrounding structure as
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007