Appeal No. 2003-1570
Application 08/748,986
No. 42) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.3
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 17, 22, 25, 26, 28
through 33 and 35 through 38 as being anticipated by Guerrero
Guerrero discloses a dual linear winch system which is
described in the reference as follows:
As shown in Figure 2, a dual linear winch system
10 includes a pair of [intermittent] linear winches 12
and 14 mounted on a bridge or support 16.
Also mounted on bridge 16 is a power unit 18 which
supplies the electrical and hydraulic power for linear
winches 12 and 14.
A dual linear winch system also includes a pair of
storage reels 20 and 22 which store the cable 24 and 26
for linear winches 12 and 14 respectively. Cables 24
and 26 run through linear winches 12 and 14 and through
pulley systems 28 and 30 which are in turn attached to
substantially opposite ends of load 32 [page 1, lines
91 through 102].
To accomplish coordinated lifting of the load, the winches
12 and 14 include limit switches that sense the end of the travel
stroke of each winch and communicate the sensing to a
programmable controller 80 which ensures that the stroke cycles
3 In the final rejection, claim 37 also stood rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite and claims
22, 24 through 26, 28 through 30, 32, 33 and 35 through 38 also
stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
U.S. Patent No. 4,665,696 to Rosman. The examiner has since
withdrawn both of these rejections (see the advisory action dated
November 22, 2002, Paper No. 39, and page 2 in the answer).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007