Appeal No. 2005-0768
Application No. 10/010,203
September 16, 2004) for the respective positions of the appellant
and the examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.2
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 2 as being
anticipated by Mason
Mason discloses an elevator noise and vibration isolation
system which is described in the reference as follows:
. . . 10 designates a conventional guide shoe
stand which is secured to and carried by the elevator
car, said stand including a horizontally disposed
tubular bearing 11, in which is arranged for horizontal
sliding movement, a conventional spring pressed shaft
12 carrying on its forward end a vertically disposed
shoe 13, which is channel shaped in horizontal section.
Removably positioned on the ends of the shoe 13
are caps or plates 14, and formed in each plate is
notch 15 for the accommodation of the conventional
elevator guiding rail 16 that extends vertically
through the hatchway.
Positioned within the shoe 13, and retained
therein by the removable plates 14 is a gib 17 that is
channel shaped in horizontal section, and said gib
being formed of iron wood and preferably that
particular species of iron wood that is commercially
known as desert iron wood.
The channel that is formed in this gib, receives
the outer portion of the flange 18 of guide rail 16,
and positioned within the shoe 13 behind and to the
2 In the final rejection (mailed August 15, 2003), claims 2
and 10 through 14 also stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, and claim 14 additionally stood rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The record indicates that the
examiner has since withdrawn these rejections. The record also
contains an English language translation of the Kiri reference,
which translation was prepared by the USPTO and appended by the
examiner to the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007