Appeal No. 2001-2505
Application No. 09/072,097
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, or claim 2 dependent thereon.
In regard to claim 10, we note that claim 10 also recites a
rotationally stationary housing and a pulley connected to the
housing such that the pulley is rotationally stationary.
Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to
claim 10.
Claim 16 also recites a rotationally stationary housing and a
pulley connected to the housing to form a rotationally stationary
pulley. Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection as it is
directed to claim 16 .
Claim 23 recites a permanently rotationally stationary pulley.
As such, we will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to
claim 23 and claims 24 to 26 dependent thereon.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 7, 11
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara in
view of Poduje. Claims 3 and 7 are dependent on claim 1 and claims
11 and 14 are dependent on claim 10. The examiner relies on Poduje
for teaching mounting the device in Uehara on a means for
vertically moving the wafer. However, we have examined Uehara and
have determined that Uehara fails to disclose a rotationally
stationary pulley connected to a stationary housing. Further, we
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007