Appeal No. 2004-0837
Application No. 09/778,481
and 4B. We find that both Yamagami and Hirama teach the sensor
(detector) being “spaced” from the driver sheave. See Yamagami’s
gape referred to at column 2, lines 4-31 and Figures 3 and 5 and
the examiner’s undisputed findings directed to Hirama at page 5
of the Answer. To the extent that Yamagami is interpreted as
not teaching the claimed placement of the sensor, the examiner’s
finding at page 5 of the Answer also provides ample motivation to
employ Hirama’s sensor2 in the manner taught by Hirama in the
elevator system of the type described in Yamagami to improve the
detection of rope defects. Specifically, we note the examiner’s
undisputed findings at page 5 of the Answer as shown below:
Hirama et al teaches a rope wear detector for an
elevator which detects the internal wear of a “belt”
encasing in a protective coating several wire ropes 2.
As illustrated in figure 1, the detector 5 is placed
away from sheaves 4A, 4B.
Hirama et al states that the use of detecting coil type
detector improves the sensitivity of defect detection
in a rope wear detector as well as detection of a
cavity or crinkle, in addition to the detection of a
break.
Thus, the dispositive question is whether one of ordinary
skill in the art would have placed the sensor of the type
described in Hirama and/or Yamagami to “provide information
regarding a wear condition of a portion or the entire portion of
2 The appellants indicate the sensor of the type described
in Hirama as one of the sensors employed in the appellants’
elevator system. See the specification, page 4.
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007