Appeal No. 2004-0906
Application No. 09/571,896
to the stairway wall, thus allowing the artisan to be in possession
of the invention as now claimed. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147,
1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(a reference anticipates
a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled
artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own
knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the
invention).
Appellants argue that Crispen fails to disclose or suggest
that the paths of the elevator car and the counterweight are
oriented laterally and parallel to one another along the single
wall (Brief, page 8). This argument is not persuasive since
Crispen clearly discloses that the path of the elevator car and
the counterweight are oriented laterally (i.e., side by side) and
parallel to one another along the stairway wall (see Figure 3 and
the Answer, page 5, third and fourth full paragraphs).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation which has not been adequately rebutted by appellants.
Therefore we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7
and 9 under section 102(b) over Crispen.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007