Appeal No. 2004-0623
Application 09/293,923
braking cables are fixed” when the winch is in the position in which the braking cables
are disengaged, with the rotary shaft driving the winch being “substantially orthogonal
with respect to the braking cables.” It is the examiner’s position that the embodiment of
the braking system that is shown in Bailieux’ Figure 3F discloses all of the subject
matter recited in claim 12 except for the rotary shaft being orthogonal with respect to the
braking cables. However, the examiner goes on to find that such an arrangement is
present in the embodiment in Bailieux’ Figure 4C, and concludes it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Figure 3F system by orienting the
motor drive shaft orthogonally with respect to the braking cables “to accommodate a
certain space requirement as taught by Bailieux’s Figure 4C.” See Paper No. 15, pages
5 and 6.
We agree with the appellant that this rejection is defective. While Bailieux states
that the arrangement in Figure 4C is “adapted to that space available in the vehicle”
(translation, page 15), the examiner has not explained why the Figure 4C arrangement
would be an improvement over that of Figure 3F, which from the drawings appears to
occupy no more space than that of Figure 4C. Also, the Figure 4C embodiment is
directed to an entirely different concept for operating the brakes, in which a separate
cable winding drum is utilized for each the two cables rather than the single drum
present in Figure 3F. Finally, the examiner incorrectly has found (Paper No. 15, page 5)
that the driving gear in Bailieux’ Figure 3F is centrally disposed between the attachment
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007