Appeal No. 2005-0768
Application No. 10/010,203
Thus, the appellant’s position that the subject matter
recited in claim 2 distinguishes over that disclosed by Mason is
not persuasive. Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 2 as being anticipated by
Mason.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 2 and 10 through
14 as being anticipated by Kiri
Kiri discloses three embodiments of an elevator noise and
vibration isolation system shown, respectively, in Figures 1
through 3, Figures 4 through 6 and Figures 7 through 9. For
purposes of this rejection, the examiner focuses on the
embodiment shown in Figures 1 through 3. Kiri describes this
embodiment as follows:
. . . In the figures, 20 shows the guide shoe
frame secured to the [elevator] cage frame; 21 an L-
shaped bracket in its sectional view, which has a notch
in the center and is secured to the raised section 20a
of frame 20, 22 the anti-vibration rubber, the one end
of which is vulcanization-bonded to the top or bottom
surface of the horizontal section of bracket 21, and 23
a plate with a stud bolt 24 that is vulcanization-
bonded to the other end of anti-vibration rubber 22.
In the figures, 25 indicates the shoe supporting
metal in which the shoe 26 is integrated; to its top
and bottom sections, the L-shaped bracket 27 is
soldered, and it is connected to the anti-vibration
rubber 22 via bolt 24 and plate 23. In the figures, 28
and 29 indicate the shoe-holding metals for holding the
shoe 26 and are secured to the top and bottom ends of
the shoe-supporting metal 25. In the figures, 30
indicates a stopper secured to the rear surface of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007