Appeal No. 2006-0259
Application No. 09/220,462
Tracey and Yoshinobu because the drive of Yoshinobu must be
located on top of the car.” From our review of Tracey, we find
that Tracey’s disclosure of header 32 in figures 1 and 2 would
have suggested to an artisan that the drive system of Yoshinobu
be mounted to the elevator car by a header, as Yoshinobu is
silent as to a header for securing the apparatus to the elevator
car.
We are not persuaded by appellants’ arguments because
although the prior art figure 6 of Yoshinobu discloses a motor at
the top of the elevator car, the invention of Yoshinobu replaces
that motor and drive mechanism with a linear motor located in the
rope region. From all of the above, we are not persuaded of any
error on the part of the examiner. The rejection of claim 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. As claims 19 and 20 have
not been separately argued, they fall with claim 18, from which
they depend. The rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007