Appeal No. 2003-1347 Page 2
Application No. 09/825,044
The appellants’ invention relates to an elevator control device (specification, p.
1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’
brief.
The prior art
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Platt 5,284,225 Feb. 8, 1994
Sasao 4,924,416 May 8, 1990
The rejections
Claims 1 to 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Platt.
Claims 7 to 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Platt in view of Sasao.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 13 , filed March 10, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
1 The appellants’ brief contains a section entitled “Response to Drawing Objections.” We will not
address this portion of the brief as the propriety of drawing objections is not a matter properly before the
Board but rather should have been timely addressed in a petition pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.181.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007