Appeal No. 2003-1570
Application 08/748,986
synchronize the drums, as taught by Maltby” (answer, page 3).
Maltby, however, does not teach or suggest an electronic
processor, let alone an electronic processor having a routine for
adjusting the operation of a hoisting mechanism in response to a
sensed relative amount by which ropes or cables are taken up.
Hence, Maltby does not cure the admitted shortcomings of Durand
relative to the subject matter recited in independent claims 17
and 25.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 17 and 25, and dependent
claims 26, 28 through 30, 32, 33 and 35 through 38, as being
unpatentable over Durand in view of Maltby.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 17 through 19,
25, 26, 28, 30 through 33, 35, 37 and 38 as being unpatentable
over Durand in view of Bayer
In this rejection, the examiner relies on Bayer to overcome
Durand’s failure to 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.
Bayer discloses an elevating system for raising and lowering
battens used to suspend lighting, scenery, drapery and other
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007