Appeal No. 2006-0259
Application No. 09/220,462
difficult, even impossible to install without an increased space
requirement,” we find that an artisan would have been taught to
replace the linear motor, which includes a reaction bar that
extends a significant distance across the front of the elevator
car, with a flat motor integrated into the sheave as taught by
Aulanko. From the lack of arguments with respect to this
rejection, we are not convinced of any error on the part of the
examiner. The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed. As claims 17 and 21 have not been separately argued,
and fall with claim 16 (brief, page 3), the rejection of claims
17 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 18-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshinobu in view of
Aulanko and further in view of Tracey. The examiner states
(answer, pages 6 and 7) that Yoshinobu does not show a header to
mount the drive components. To overcome this deficiency of
Yoshinobu, the examiner turns to Tracey for a teaching of a
header mounted between the top of the car and the top of the door
opening (figures 1 and 2). Appellants assert (brief, page 6)
that “Yoshinobu clearly shows a motor located on top of the car.
As discussed above there is no motivation to combine Aulanko et
al and Yoshinobu therefore there is no motivation to combine
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007