Appeal No. 2003-1570
Application 08/748,986
nothing to do with winch synchronization. Thus, Bayer would not
have suggested modifying the method disclosed by Durand in the
manner proposed by the examiner so as to arrive at the method
recited in claims 17 and 25.
Consequently, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 17 and 25, and dependent
claims 18, 19, 26, 28, 30 through 33, 35, 37 and 38, as being
unpatentable over Durand in view of Bayer.
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 22 through 24 as
being unpatentable over Durand in view of Bayer and Guerrero
Guerrero does not remedy the insufficiencies of the Durand
and Bayer combination with respect to the limitations in
independent claim 22 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.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 22, and dependent claims
23 and 24, as being unpatentable over Durand in view of Bayer and
Guerrero.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007