Appeal No. 2006-0409 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/439,736
as taught by Yu in order to prevent the operation of the apparatus while
improving on the safely of the apparatus [answer at page 4].
We agree with the appellants that there is no motivation to combine the
teachings of the cited prior art. Pearson is concerned with monitoring the number of
occupied chairs so as to increase efficiency in a multiple ski lift ski area (col. 1, lines 27
to 32). The proximity sensors 50 are used to determine whether there is a passenger in
a chair at a particular location (col. 5, lines 28 to 33). Pearson is not concerned with
securing a passenger in the seat. As such, in our view, there would be no motivation for
a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a sensor for determining whether or not a
safety bar of the given chair is locked.
In addition, Tremblay does not teach a sensor that senses the locking of a safety
bar. Rather, Tremblay describes a swivel mechanism for locking the seat in a transport
position and for disabling the chairlift operation unless the seat is in the transport
position (Figs 6 to 8; col. 1, lines 56 to 59; col. 9, line 36; col.10, line 65).
For the foregoing reasons, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection. The
decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007