Appeal No. 2006-0848
Application No. 09/981,231
apparently uses teachings from Douthit without explaining which features are taught,
and that the examiner provided no motivation for combining Ferguson with Abe.
Appellant asserts that the combination would not be made because the nacelle 2 of Abe
would not be able to be raised and lowered along the guides 1a of the tower 1. Finally,
appellant argues that the proposed combination would not include an upper tower
section and a lower tower section that is removably connected [brief, pages 34-35]. The
examiner responds that the motivation for combining Abe with Ferguson is for the
purpose of providing a self containing system that is easy to transport and install at site
without the need of providing an additional crane or other hauling means [answer, page
20].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 57 as unpatentable over Abe and
Ferguson. Ferguson teaches a wind machine tower in which an upper section is
telescopically located within a lower section. Thus, although the upper section can be
extended to increase the height of the tower, there is no
teaching that the upper section can be removed from the lower section. Appellant
argues that the tower of Ferguson does not meet the claimed removably connected
feature, and the examiner has never addressed this argument. Since the tower
19
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007