Appeal No. 2000-1737
Application No. 08/965,180
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have determined that the applied
prior art does not provide an evidentiary basis for a prima
facie case of obviousness under section 103. Accordingly, the
rejections of claims 1 and 4 through 7 are reversed. Our
reasons follow.
We are in agreement with the examiner that Okada '451
discloses an elevator safety brake with a brake shoe 5a for
contacting guide rail 3. Okada '451 also discloses a means
for pressing the friction surface against the guide rail.
Okada '451 differs from the invention of claim 1 in that,
while Okada '451 discloses several molybdenum alloys, Okada
'451 does not disclose the specific alloy claimed.
We further agree with the examiner that The Science and
Technology article discloses a molybdenum alloy containing
molybdenum with 0.5 weight percent titanium and 0.07 weight
percent zirconium. The examiner further states that the
zirconium rounds to 0.1 weight percent. However, The Science
and Technology article does not include any suggestion or
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007