Appeal No. 2003-1178 Page 2
Application No. 09/218,990
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a tension member for an elevator. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,
which has been reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Schuerch 4,534,163 Aug. 13, 1985
Bruyneel et al. (Bruyneel) 5,461,850 Oct. 31,1995
Claims 1-3, 5-15, 18, 20, 23 and 45-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bruyneel.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bruyneel in view of Schuerch.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 25) and the final rejection (Paper No. 21) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 24) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 26) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007