Appeal No. 2004-0906
Application No. 09/571,896
rail 3, not a pair of guide rails as required by claim 1 on appeal
(Brief, page 8). This argument is not well taken since the
examiner has pointed to the drawing of Crispen (Fig. 2) where the
single rail 3 is constructed in two parts, with a rear wall 6 and
a side wall 7, to form a channel formation which acts as the guide
rail (Crispen, page 1, right column, ll. 21-24).
Even assuming that the rail 3 can be considered a pair of
rails, appellants argue that there is no disclosure in Crispen that
the rail 3 and/or the counterweight enclosure 5 are supported by a
single wall, much less to a wall to which the alleged pair of rails
is substantially parallel planar (Brief, page 8; Reply Brief, page
3). Appellants disagree that the post 4 can be considered a “wall”
(Reply Brief, page 5). Appellants present similar arguments
against the rejection of claim 7 (Brief, pages 11-12; Reply Brief,
pages 4-5).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Although Crispen
discloses, as an example, that the post 4 is anchored to the floor
of the building, it is clear from the drawings that the elevator
rests along a stairway with the guide rail allowing the elevator
car to reach the floor landing 21 (see Figure 1). Accordingly, to
firmly anchor the elevator assembly at such heights, a skilled
artisan would have known to attach the wood post at least partially
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007