Appeal No. 2000-0784
Application No. 08/995,507
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we have reviewed the applied patent and,
like appellants, find no teaching or disclosure therein of a
hydraulic elevator system like that specifically set forth in
claims 1, 11, 14, 15 and 22 through 24 on appeal. Looking
particularly at independent claims 1, 11 and 22, we share
appellants' view as expressed in the brief (pages 5-6) and in
the reply brief (pages 2-5) that Nakamura does not show or
describe a hydraulic elevator system wherein "the tank and
pump are disposed in [or within] the hoistway," while "a valve
block" (claim 1), "a release mechanism" (claim 11) or "a
control valve assembly" (claim 22) associated with control of
the elevator is "disposed outside the hoistway." The Nakamura
patent teaches either having all the hydraulic components in
the hoistway (Figs. 1-2) or moving the valve block along with
the hydraulic pump and motor outside the hoistway (col. 4,
lines 47-54) to thereby eliminate the need to service the
hydraulic devices in the elevator shaft. There is no
disclosure or suggestion in Nakamura of separating the valve
block (or control valve assembly) from the hydraulic pump, nor
of moving the valve block (or control valve assembly) outside
the hoistway while keeping the hydraulic pump inside the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007