Appeal No. 2001-0484 Page 7
Application No. 09/116,409
requirements of claim 1. Specifically, the examiner states
that "[t]he heat from the lights 18 will heat deck 8, frame 9
and guide 10 via conduction through elements 8-10 or
convection by the circulating air currents."
The appellants' position (brief, pages 3-4) is that the
heat generated by Saito's lights 18 will not travel through
the structures (e.g., deck 8, frame 9 and guide 10) with
enough efficiency to heat the handrail, much less perform the
function of preventing the handrail from freezing especially
in view of Saito's teaching quoted above.
We find ourselves in agreement with the appellants'
position in this matter. In our view, the heat generated by
Saito's lights 18 will not inherently meet the requirements of
claim 1. In that regard, we find the examiner's position on
this matter to be based upon shear speculation that the prior
art necessarily functions in accordance with the claimed
limitations (i.e., prevents a handrail of an outdoor escalator
from freezing). As pointed out by the appellants, when the
illuminating lamp is arranged within the main deck as taught
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007