Appeal No. 2004-0837
Application No. 09/778,481
specific teachings of the prior art references, but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
With the above precedents in mind we turn to the examiner’s
Section 103 rejections.1 We find that both Yamagami and Hirama
teach a cage corresponding to the claimed cab, a counterweight
corresponding to the claimed metallic load bearing members, an
elevator rope connecting the counterweight and the cage, a driver
sheave for guiding the rope and a rope wear sensor (detector)
corresponding to the claimed inspection device. See the
examiner’s undisputed findings directed to Yamagami at page 5 of
the Answer and Hirama, column 2, lines 42-55 and Figures 1, 2, 4A
1 According to the appellants (Brief, page 5), the claims on
appeal are grouped as follows:
Group 1 - Claims 1-5, 12 and 17;
Group 2 - Claim 3;
Group 3 - Claims 5, 6, 10 and 18;
Group 4 - Claims 7 and 8;
Group 5 - Claim 9;
Group 6 - Claim 11;
Group 7 - Claims 13 and 19;
Group 8 - Claim 14;
Group 9 - Claims 15 and 16;
Group 10 - Claim 20;
Group 11 - Claim 21; and
Group 12 - Claim 22;
Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we select claims 1, 3, 7,
9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21 and 22 and decide the propriety of the
examiner’s Section 103 rejections based on these claims alone
consistent with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8)(2003).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007