Appeal No. 2003-1570
Application 08/748,986
mechanisms (linear winches 12 and 14) or Guerrero’s limit switch
and programmable control arrangement, which merely prevents new
winch stroke cycles from starting until both winches are ready,
as sensing the relative amount by which the ropes or cables 24
and 26 are taken up and adjusting the operation of at least one
of the hoisting mechanisms based on a processor routine operating
in response to the sensing.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 17, 22 and 25, and
dependent claims 26, 28 through 33 and 35 through 38, as being
anticipated by Guerrero.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 17, 25, 26, 28
through 30, 32, 33 and 35 through 38 as being unpatentable over
Durand in view of Maltby
Durand discloses a lifting crane (see Figure 3) comprising a
tower 22, a jib 23, a hoist crossbar 17, a hoist carriage 20
which is translatable along the jib, two strictly synchronized
winch drums 39a and 39b, two lifting cables 16a and 16b extending
between the winches and the hoist bar, and a series of pulleys
for guiding the cables. Durand states that “[t]o raise or lower
a load, it suffices to rotate the two drums 39a-39[b],
simultaneously at the same speed, to obtain an equal ascent or
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007