Appeal No. 2006-0259
Application No. 09/220,462
From all of the above, we find that the combined teachings
of Yoshikawa and Aulanko would have suggested to an artisan the
language of claim 16, and we are not persuaded by appellants of
any error on the part of the examiner. The rejection of claim 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. As claim 21 has not been
separately argued, the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 16, 17 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshinobu in view
of Aulanko. The examiner’s position (answer, page 5) is that
Yoshinobu does not show a flat motor integrated onto a sheave.
To overcome this deficiency of Yoshinobu, the examiner turns to
Aulanko for a teaching of a flat motor integrated onto a sheave.
The examiner asserts (id.) that “[i]t would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of
Yoshinobu by replacing the pulley driven reduction system of
Yoshinobu with the flat motor integrated onto a sheave as taught
by Aulanko et al in order to save space and eliminate the failure
mode to the pulley 15.” Appellants present no arguments as to
this rejection. Although appellants (brief, page 5) list the
statement of the rejection, the arguments that follow relate to
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007