Appeal No. 1999-1812
Application No. 08/692,761
sheave in mechanical communication with the cable for holding
the cable in the groove of the sheave, and an input roller 52
at one end of the plurality of linkage means. Of particular
interest in the obviousness issue raised in this appeal is the
requirement of claim 13 that the plurality of linkage means 42
comprises means for connection of each of said rollers to each
other “in which at least one of said linkage means comprises
means for selectably detachable removal thereof from a roller
communicating therewith.” According to claim 13, with the
above arrangement “placement of said cable means between said
sheave and said plurality of rollers is facilitated by removal
of said at least one of said selectably detachably removable
linkage means . . . .”
Turning to the examiner’s § 103 rejection of the appealed
claims, there appears to be no dispute that Naito’s Figure 8
embodiment includes all the limitations of claim 13 except
that Naito’s links 8, 8A for connecting rollers 10, 23
together are not disclosed as including at least one link “for
selectably detachable removal thereof from a roller
communicating therewith,” as now claimed. Nevertheless, the
examiner has taken the position that it would have been
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007