Appeal No. 2003-1570
Application 08/748,986
equal descent of the two cables 16a-16b” (column 2, lines 62
through 64).
The examiner concedes that Durand does not meet the
limitations in independent claims 17 and 25 requiring the
relative amount by which the ropes are taken up to be sensed and
the operation of at least one of the hoisting mechanisms to be
adjusted based on a processor routine operating in response to
the sensing. To overcome this deficiency, the examiner turns to
Maltby.
Maltby discloses a pair of powered hoist arrangements 10 and
11 for lifting or lowering separate loads W. Each arrangement
comprises a winch drum 12, a gas turbine 14 for driving the drum,
a brake assembly 15, a cable 25 laid up on the drum in a single
layer and a control apparatus 17, 18. A synchronizing circuit
180 connected to the control apparatuses is capable of reacting
to differences in the rotation of the drums to reduce any
tendency of the arrangements to lag or lead one another (see
column 9, line 21 et seq.).
In proposing to combine Durand and Maltby, the examiner
submits that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify the liftcrane of Durand by using an
electronic processor [to] control the hoist drums, to accurately
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007