Appeal No. 2004-0837
Application No. 09/778,481
It follows that one of ordinary skill in the art interested in
improving the long-distance elevator of the type described in
Saito would have been led to place the sensor of Hirama or
Yamagami on a sheave located on a cab due to the well known rope
arrangement for such long-distance elevator. Indeed, the
appellants have not disputed the examiner’s determination that
the placement of a sheave is a function a desired rope ratio for
a given elevator system.
The appellants argue that the applied prior art references
do not teach or suggest “weighing the various factors and
determining which of those factors has a higher significance than
other factors as part of determining which portion of the belt is
most likely to wear” as recited in claims 9 and 15. As indicated
supra, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
necessarily or appropriately weighed and considered factors
causing the highest stress to the particular portions of the rope
(such as those mentioned above) before implementation of a
detector to prevent any catastrophic accidents. Otherwise, the
detector would not serve the purpose stated in Hirama or
Yamagami.
The appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to
employ a kind of belt recited in claims 20, 21 and 22 in the
elevator system of the type described in Yamagami. The
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007