Appeal No. 2006-0259
Application No. 09/220,462
a different rejection that was no longer relied upon by the
examiner, and did not appear in the final rejection. In the
answer (page 8), the examiner brought this to appellants’
attention. Appellants could have chosen to file a reply brief to
provide arguments relating to this rejection, but did not do so.
Thus, we address the record as it stands.
From our review of Yoshinobu we find, as shown in a
conventional elevator car door drive device (prior art figure 6),
that motor 13 drives principal pulley 7 through the use of a
drive belt (page 3). Yoshinobu discloses (page 2) that the
objective of the invention is to reduce the number of structural
members and the weight of the overall device, and to eliminate
slippage of the drive belt. As disclosed on page 4, when the
device of figure 6 is used for a long time, drive belt 15 slacks,
and principal pulley 7 slips. In addition, maintenance is needed
to keep the prescribed tension for drive belt 15. According to
the invention, a linear motor 20, including a primary coil 23 and
a reaction rod 25 (secondary conductor) is used. The reaction
rod slides back and forth in the axial direction. At the end
portions of the reaction rod 25 are the ends of closed loop
transmission rope 10. Yoshinobu further discloses (page 5) that
as a result of the invention, it is possible to reduce the number
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007