Appeal No. 2004-2209 4
Application No. 09/406,445
See translation, pages 3 and 4. Thus, the German laid open application teaches non-
metallic or concrete guide rails for an elevator car. The German laid open application is
completely silent with respect to friction surfaces, coefficients of friction between the
friction surface and the guide rail, or the limit, viz., 50 psi, on the pressure with which the
friction surface contacts the guide rails.
The UK patent to Winkler discloses a guide rail safety device using a metallic
guide rail as is common in the prior art. Winkler discloses wedges 9 and 10 with at least
one horizontal locator 15 and an actuator 39. Figure 6 of Winkler illustrates the function
of the catching device. The solid lines represent the friction force developed by the
stopping device at various coefficients of friction. The dashed line represents the prior
art stopping device. Note that Winkler offers improved friction force at
coefficients of friction lower than 0.85. Winkler also expressly states that coefficients of
friction above 0.85 are exceedingly difficult to attain. The differences between Winkler
and the claimed subject matter include the fact that Winkler is directed to metallic guide
rails, Winkler has no teaching of limiting the force by which the friction surfaces contact
the guide rail, and Winkler teaches coefficients of friction above 0.85 are difficult to
attain.
Turning first to the rejection of claims 25-31, 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, it is understandable that appellants have difficulty responding to this
rejection, for it is unclear exactly the basis for the examiner’s reasoning. Initially, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007