Appeal No. 2006-0848
Application No. 09/981,231
than the examiner’s bare assertion, that the thrust bearing 17 of Abe is a pivot ring as
claimed.
Claim 10
Since claim 10 depends from claim 9, we also do not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claim 10 as anticipated by Abe.
Claims 18, 26 and 71
Appellant argues that Abe does not disclose a wind powered generator that can be
removably placed within a carriage and that can be removed from within a carriage.
Appellant asserts that mount 12 in Abe does not have an area for accepting anything,
much less the nacelle 2, the rotor head 4 or the rotor blade 5. Appellant argues that
since the examiner has identified mount 12 and supporting member 6 as the carriage,
the carriage would have to be destroyed in order to remove the wind powered generator
[brief, pages 14-15].
The examiner responds that claim 18 does not require that the wind powered
generator be removable without disassembling the carriage structure. The examiner
notes that Abe teaches that the nacelle may be replaced after being lowered to the
tower bottom, which inherently involves replacing the generator [answer, pages 13-14].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 18, 26 and 71 as anticipated by
Abe. Although we agree with appellant’s argument that the examiner’s reading of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007