Ex Parte Illan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 3, 2017

13703649 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/703,649 12/12/2012 Juan Antonio Ilian 57189US01 (U320190US) 9612
87423 7590 10/05/2017
Cantor Colburn LLP - Otis Elevator
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
SAHNI, VISHAL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
frederic .tenney@otis.com
frederic .tenney@otis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUAN ANTONIO ILLAN, JOSE MARIA SANDOVAL, JUAN
MARTIN-MARTIN, and ANTONIO SANCHEZ-PALENZUELA
Appeal 2017-003788
Application 13/703,649
Technology Center 3600
Before THU A. DANG, ERIC S. FRAHM, and DAVID J. CUTITTA, II,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention pertain to a brake for an
elevator, the brake including parts having a finish that reduces the likelihood
of brake components sticking together (claims 1, 11, 17; Spec. 2:13—17;
Appeal 2017-003788
Application 13/703,649
Abs.). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below with emphasis added:
1. A brake for an elevator, the brake comprising:
a fixed plate;
a movable plate, movable axially toward and away from
the fixed plate; and
a liner between the fixed plate and the movable plate to
stop movement of the elevator when in contact with the
movable plate and the fixed plate;
wherein at least one of the movable plate and the fixed
plate has a finish that reduces the likelihood of the liner sticking
to at least one of the plates.
The Examiner s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1—5, 8—13, and 15—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Monzon
(WO 2008/033137 Al; published March 20, 2008) and Tanaka (JP
2003/262,243 A; published Sept. 19, 2003). Final Act. 2—6; Ans. 2—6.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 6, 7, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Monzon, Tanaka,
and Kashiwada (US 2007/0166466 Al; published July 19, 2007). Final
Act. 6—7; Ans. 6—7.
Reply Brief
No Reply Brief has been presented. Therefore, Appellants have not
disputed the Examiner’s articulated reasoning and findings found at
pages 7—9 of the Answer, including the new support by way of intrinsic
evidence for the equivalence of Appellants’ selection and use of stainless
steel of a specified roughness range of .03—.07 Ra (see Spec. 5:13—16, 30-
33) with that of Tanaka (see Ans. 7—8 citing Tanaka Tflf 20, 26).
2
Appeal 2017-003788
Application 13/703,649
Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 3—10) in
light of the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal
Brief (Ans. 7—9), the following principal issues are presented on appeal:1
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 1—5, 8—13, and 15—20
over the combination of Monzon and Tanaka; and (ii) claims 6, 7, and 14
over the base combination of Monzon and Tanaka in view of Kashiwada,
because Tanaka, and thus the base combination of Monzon and Tanaka, fails
to teach or suggest a brake for an elevator including a plate with “a finish
that reduces the likelihood of the liner sticking to at least one of the plates,”
as recited in representative claim 1?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 9 and 10 because the
combination of Monzon and Tanaka, and specifically Monzon’s Figure 2,
fails to teach or suggest “a lining fixed to each side” of a metal disk as
recited in claim 9, and as similarly recited in claim 10, which directly
depends from claim 9?
1 Appellants primarily present arguments regarding claim 1 (Br. 3—5) and
claims 9 and 10 (Br. 5), and rely on the arguments presented as to claim 1
for the patentability of remaining claims 2—8 and 11—20 rejected over the
base combination of Monzon and Tanaka (Br. 5—10). We select claim 1 as
representative of the group of claims (claims 1—5, 8, 11—13, and 15—20)
rejected over Monzon and Tanaka. The outcome of the rejection of claims
6, 7, and 14 over Monzon, Tanaka, and Kashiwada will stand/fall with the
outcome of representative claim 1.
3
Appeal 2017-003788
Application 13/703,649
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 2—7; Ans. 2—
7) in light of Appellants’ contentions in the Appeal Brief (Br. 3—10) that the
Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 7—9).
Claims 1—5, 8, 11—13, and 15—20
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments (Br. 4—8) as to representative
independent claim 1. With regard to representative independent claim 1, we
adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—4), and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-4). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of the references as follows.
The Examiner has relied upon the combination of Monzon and
Tanaka as teaching or suggesting a brake for an elevator including a plate
with “a finish that reduces the likelihood of the liner sticking to at least one
of the plates,” recited in claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2—3, 7—9) that the
base combination of Monzon and Tanaka teaches or suggest all of the
recited limitations in representative independent claim 1. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, that intrinsic evidence by way of Appellants’
Specification supports the obviousness of selecting an appropriate material
for a finish with roughness properties to achieve the goals of reducing
sticking of brakes.
Specifically, the Examiner finds (Ans. 7—8), and we agree, that
Appellants’ selection and use of stainless steel of a specified roughness
4
Appeal 2017-003788
Application 13/703,649
range of .03—07 Ra (see Spec. 5:13—16, 30-33) is taught or suggested by
Tanaka’s selection of stainless steel having a similar roughness range/rating
(see Ans. 7—8 citing Tanaka Tflf 20, 26). Appellants have not filed a Reply
Brief, or otherwise shown error with persuasive argument or evidence,
rebutting the Examiner’s findings. Therefore, Appellants’ contentions are
not persuasive of Examiner error with regard to representative claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2—5, 8, 11—
13, and 15—20 grouped therewith.
Claims 9 and 10
With regard to dependent claims 9 and 10, reciting “a lining fixed to
each side” of a metal disk, we agree with the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 4, 9)
that Monzon (Fig. 2), and not Tanaka, teaches this feature. Appellants have
not filed a Reply Brief or otherwise shown error with persuasive argument
or evidence as to Monzon’s disclosure in Figure 2.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 10.
Claims 6, 7, and 14
With regard to claims 6, 7, and 14, Appellants rely on the same
arguments presented for claims 1 and 11 from which claims 6, 7, and 14
respectively and ultimately depend. Therefore, for the same reasons as
provided for claim 1 already discussed above, we also find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, and 14 over the same base combination
of Monzon and Tanaka.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 6, 7, and 14 over Monzon, Tanaka, and Kashiwada.
5
Appeal 2017-003788
Application 13/703,649
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—5, 8—13, and 15—20
because the base combination of Monzon and Tanaka, and specifically
Tanaka, teaches or suggests a brake for an elevator including a plate with “a
finish that reduces the likelihood of the liner sticking to at least one of the
plates,” as recited in representative claim 1.
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 9 and 10 because the
combination of Monzon and Tanaka, and specifically Monzon, teaches or
suggests “a lining fixed to each side” of a metal disk as recited in claim 9,
and as similarly recited in claim 10 which directly depends from claim 9.
(3) The Examiner did not err in rejecting dependent claims 6, 7, and
14 over the base combination of Monzon and Tanaka in view of Kashiwada
for the same reasons as claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6