Appeal No. 2006-0848
Application No. 09/981,231
Appellant responds that the thrust bearing 17 of Abe is not configured to accept
anything therein because it is locked between the supporting member 6 and the base 9
and, therefore, does not accept the wind powered generator therein. Appellant also
responds that Abe only discloses two spaced apart bearings 17 that do not form a pivot
ring as claimed nor does a pivot ring necessarily flow from the teachings of Abe [reply
brief, pages 3-
5].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 15 and 17 as anticipated by
Abe. Claim 9 recites an elevator that includes a track and a carriage configured to
move along the track. The carriage of an elevator is understood to mean the element
that moves along the track. The examiner has read the carriage of claim 9 on the
liftable mount 12 of Abe, which does in fact move along the track 1a, and on the
supporting member 6, which does not move along the elevator track 1a. We find that
the supporting member 6 of Abe can not form part of the carriage
because it does not move along the track of the elevator. Since supporting element 6 is
not part of the carriage, the carriage of Abe also does not include a pivot ring as
claimed. We also agree with appellant that there is no evidence on this record, other
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007