Appeal No. 2006-0848
Application No. 09/981,231
connection being at a position off center from the axis of the vertical leg [reply brief,
page 11].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 42 as unpatentable over Salter
and Abe. We can find nothing in this record by the examiner which addresses the
claimed feature of the
housing being connected to an end of the vertical leg at a position off center from an
axis of the vertical leg. Therefore, the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of the obviousness of claim 42.
Claim 44
Appellant argues that the proposed combination does not include any tower including
an elevator or a carriage as such is not disclosed in Salter nor added to the teaching of
Salter [brief, page 28]. Appellant also argues that there is no motivation for the
proposed combination [reply brief, page 11]. The examiner relies on the arguments
made with respect to claim 39 [answer, page 19].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 44 as unpatentable over Salter
and Abe. We can find nothing in this record that shows that the examiner has ever
addressed the specific elements of claim 44. The examiner’s rejection of the group of
17
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007