Appeal No. 2006-0848
Application No. 09/981,231
raised or lowered. Appellant also argues that such a modification is more than a mere
“design choice” [brief, pages 22-23]. The examiner responds that raising and lowering
the nacelle of Abe furnished with a rotary connector would involve only routine skill in
designing the wiring [answer, pages 15-17]. Appellant responds that the examiner
admits that the proposed combination would require a further modification to make the
system work [reply brief, page 7].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 25. As we noted above, the
carriage of Abe only reads on the mount 12. The electric generator in Abe is disclosed
as being within the nacelle 2 [column 2, lines 54-59]. Claim 25 recites that the carriage
includes a plurality of contacts to contact a rotating portion of the wind powered
generator. We can find no motivation for the artisan to include a plurality of contacts on
the mount 12 of Abe since the generator is located within the nacelle 2 and since all the
wiring is easily enclosed within nacelle 2.
We now consider the rejection of claims 27 and 28 based on Abe and Barnes.
Appellant’s arguments with respect to these claims consist of nothing more than reciting
what the claims cover and noting that these claims depend from claim 18. Since we
have sustained the rejection of claim 18, and since appellant has made no persuasive
arguments in rebuttal, we also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 27 and 28.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007