Appeal No. 1999-1063
Application No. 08/402,498
claims 2 through 7, 11, 21 and 23 are dependent directly or
indirectly on claim 15 and, thus, contain the limitation found
lacking, supra, in Cox. At pages 4 and 5 of the answer, the
examiner states the position that
[t]he specific arrangement of the components of the
reel (plate, sleeve, etc.) as well as other
mechanical parts (such as a bearing as claimed and
worm wheel teeth) are considered to be an obvious
choice of design to the person having ordinary skill
in the art, as a matter of mechanical and/or
functional expedient and would be [sic, have been]
obvious as such.
We do not agree. We are informed by appellant’s
specification (page 4) that “a worm gear mechanism which has a
large speed reduction ratio is used, requiring a less powerful
electric motor, thereby allowing the electric motor and
battery to be smaller.” In addition, the appellant’s
invention is described as more portable and economical than
prior art escape devices (specification, page 2). Thus,
according to appellant’s specification, the claimed apparatus
does solve a number of known problems in the art. Compare In
considered the Frankel patent or the examiner's comments with respect thereto
in reaching our decision on the standing § 103 rejection based on Cox.
However, we are remanding this application for the examiner to determine if
the claimed subject matter is patentable over the combined teachings of
Frankel and other prior art, e.g., Cox.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007