Appeal No. 2000-0784
Application No. 08/995,507
hoistway. As for independent claim 11, Nakamura does not even
disclose a release mechanism like that described by appellants
(specification, page 5), nor an arrangement in a hydraulic
elevator system where the tank and pump of the system are
"disposed within the hoistway" and the release mechanism is
"disposed outside the hoistway" as required in claim 11 on
appeal.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejections of claims 1, 11, 14, 15 and 22 through
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nakamura.
As for the examiner's rejections of claims 1, 11, 14, 15
and 22 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Nakamura, for basically the same reasons as set forth
above, we find ourselves in agreement with appellants'
position that Nakamura provides no teaching or suggestion of a
hydraulic elevator system like that specifically set forth in
the enumerated rejected claims. See pages 7 and 8 of
appellants' brief and pages 5-6 of the reply brief for
appellants' position. The examiner's selection of only the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007