Appeal No. 2000-0784
Application No. 08/995,507
flow rate control valve (20) of Nakamura to be located outside
the hoistway is clearly contrary to the teachings of that
patent at column 4, lines 47-54, which disclosure suggests
that moving the control valve along with the hydraulic pump
and motor outside the hoistway serves to eliminate the need to
service those hydraulic devices in the elevator shaft. Like
appellants, we view the examiner's position as being a classic
example of hindsight reconstruction based on impermissible
hindsight derived from appellants' own teachings.
For the above reasons, we will not sustain 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.
Regarding the examiner's additional rejections of claims
1, 6 through 10, 11, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on the collective teachings of Nakamura and Rohanna, we have
reviewed the applied patents and evaluated their teachings,
but find ourselves in agreement with appellants' position as
set forth on pages 11-14 of the brief and pages 6-7 of the
reply brief that the examiner has clearly not made out a prima
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007