Appeal No. 2006-0848
Application No. 09/981,231
sections of Ferguson are telescopically connected, appellant has argued that an
elevator can not move from the lower section to the upper section because the rails
would not be aligned. The examiner has failed to address this argument as well.
Therefore, on this record, we conclude that the examiner has failed to provide a
persuasive case of unpatentability.
We now consider the rejection of claims 72 and 74 based on Abe and Barnes. The
examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is rendered obvious by the collective
teachings of Abe and Barnes [answer, pages 11-12]. Appellant argues that the applied
prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed biasing member of claim 72 or the force
lessening feature of claim 74 [brief, pages 36-37]. The examiner responds that the
features
upon which appellant relies are not recited in the claim [answer, page 21]. Appellant
responds that the blade tip of Barnes is not biased as claimed, and that claim 74 does
recite the feature argued in the brief [reply brief, page 15].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 72 and 74 as unpatentable over
Abe and Barnes. Based on our review of the record before us, the examiner has never
addressed the claimed features relating to the biasing of the airfoils other than to assert
20
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007