Appeal No. 2004-0837
Application No. 09/778,481
IV) Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Yamagami, Hirama, the admitted prior
art and Saito.
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art references, including all of the arguments and
evidence advanced by both the examiner and the appellants in
support of their respective positions. This review has led us to
conclude that only the examiner’s Section 103 rejections are well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s Section 112
rejections for essentially those reasons set forth in the Brief
and the Reply Brief, but affirm the examiner’s Section 103
rejections for essentially those findings of fact and conclusions
set forth in the Answer. We add the following primarily for
emphasis and completeness.
WRITTEN DESCRIPTION:
The examiner has rejected claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, “as containing subject matter which was not
described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably
convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s),
at the time the application was filed, had possession of the
claimed invention.” See the Answer, page 3. According to the
examiner (the Answer, pages 3 and 4), the terms ”’spaced from the
sheave’ and ‘when the portion is spaced away from sheave’
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007