Appeal No. 2006-0848
Application No. 09/981,231
Claims 9, 15 and 17
Appellant argues that the examiner identifies the mount 12 and the supporting
member 6 of Abe as the claimed carriage, but these elements can not comprise the
claimed carriage because they are separate from each other. With this interpretation,
appellant argues that Abe does not disclose a carriage including a pivot ring configured
to accept a wind powered generator. Appellant also argues that the carriage in Abe is
not configured to be accepted within the bearing 17. Appellant argues that Abe does
not disclose a pivot ring and a pivot ring does not necessarily flow from the teachings of
Abe [brief, pages 11-14].
The examiner responds that claim 9 does not require that the carriage comprise non-
separable elements or that the shaft not be part of the carriage. The examiner also
responds that Abe discloses a single thrust bearing 17, and that the artisan would
recognize that this bearing is comprised of circular racers encompassing the bearing
balls or rollers. The examiner, therefore, finds that bearing 17 meets the claimed pivot
ring [answer, pages 12-13].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007