Appeal No. 2004-2209 3
Application No. 09/406,445
Claims 21 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
German laid open application to Hladnik in view of the British application to Winkler and
further in view of Kopman.
Claims 24 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
German laid open application in view of the British application to Winkler and further in
view of Pearson.
For the details of these rejections, reference is made to the final rejection,
Paper No. 13. For the details of appellants’ arguments with respect to the rejections,
reference is made to the appeal brief. The examiner’s response to the arguments can
be found in the examiner’s answer.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light of the prior art and
the arguments of appellants and the examiner. As a result of this review, we have
determined that none of the rejections of the claims on appeal can be sustained. Our
reasons follow.
The following represents our findings of fact with respect to the scope and
content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the claimed subject
matter. The German laid open application discloses an elevator shaft composed of
prefabricated concrete segments. The concrete segments are provided with guide ribs
5 and rib-like guides 8 to guide the elevator car and the counterweight, respectively.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007