Otis Elevator Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 29, 2021

2020004418 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2021)

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.
15/628,532 06/20/2017 Ezhil Nanjappan 98536US01 (U320939US) 3999
87423 7590 09/29/2021
Cantor Colburn LLP - Otis Elevator
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
ADNAN, MUHAMMAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2021 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):
frederic.tenney@otis.com
frederic.tenney@otis.com
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte EZHIL NANJAPPAN
____________________

Appeal 2020-004418
Application 15/628,532
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 seeks our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of Claims 1, 4–7, 9–11, 14–17, 19, and 20, all pending claims.
Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed November 11, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed February 18, 2020 (“Ans.”); the
Final Rejection mailed June 11, 2019 (“Final Act.”), and the Specification
filed June 20, 2017 (“Spec.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies Otis Elevator Company, as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
3 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could
Appeal 2020-004418
Application 15/628,532

2
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
INVENTION.
The claims relate to a lone worker system for performing a safety
check. See Abstract. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. An understanding
of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1 which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A lone worker system for performing a safety check, the
lone worker system comprising:
a mobile device comprising:
a memory storing a safety check application thereon; and
a processor, coupled to the memory, executing the safety
check application; and
wherein the processor initiates the safety check
application with respect to a service call,
wherein the safety check application executes a use-case
safety monitoring of the mobile device implement the safety
check,
wherein the use-case safety monitoring detects an
emergency situation in response to each of a connectivity of
the mobile device to a server, an activity of the mobile device,
and a motion of the mobile device,
wherein detecting the connectivity of the mobile device
to the server comprises determining if a connection exists
between the mobile device and the server,

have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-004418
Application 15/628,532

3
wherein detecting the activity of the mobile device
comprises detecting a use inactivity of a predefined time or
longer,
wherein the safety check application activates an
emergency mode that escalates the service call in response the
detection of the emergency situation by the use-case safety
monitoring,
wherein the safety check application executes an
emergency alert at a conclusion of a count by an emergency
timer of the safety check application under the emergency
mode or the server executes an emergency call based on a
communication from the safety check application of the
mobile device under the emergency mode.

Prior Art
Name4 Reference Date
Doyle US 2007/0178909 A1 Aug. 2, 2007
Leipzig US 2013/0065569 A1 Mar. 14, 2013
Armitage US 2014/0333432 A1 Nov. 13, 2014
Watson US 2015/0123787 A1 May 7, 2015
Ben-Porath US 2016/0049068 A1 Feb. 18, 2016

REJECTION5 AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 4–7, 9–11, 14–17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Watson, Doyle, Armitage, Leipzig, and
Ben-Porath. Final Act. 2–9.

4 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
5 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being
examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-004418
Application 15/628,532

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
argument that the Examiner has erred. We find Appellant persuasive with
respect to the rejection under § 103.
CLAIMS 1, 4–7, 9–11, 14–17, 19, AND 20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER
WATSON, DOYLE, ARMITAGE, LEIPZIG, AND BEN-PORATH.
The Examiner finds Watson substantially teaches the claimed
invention except Watson fails to teach “wherein the safety check application
activates an emergency mode that escalates the service call in response the
detection of the emergency situation by the use-case safety monitoring,” as
recited in Claim 1. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Armitage meets this
limitation by teaching: a system wherein (1) a safety check application
executes an emergency alert at a conclusion of a count by an emergency
timer of the safety check application under the emergency mode; or (2) the
server executes an emergency call based on a communication from the
safety check application of the mobile device under an emergency mode.
Final Act. 5.
Appellant states Claim 1 recites sequential steps of detecting an
emergency situation, activating an emergency mode, and then, in response to
a timer or emergency call, executing an emergency alert. Appeal Br. 5.
Appellant contends that in contrast, Armitage teaches a system in a tracking,
not an emergency mode. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues the cited portions
of Armitage disclose that a user can activate a monitoring application on a
mobile device that will generate an alert if the user does not move for 2
minutes. Id. Appellant argues, in this situation, the system of Armitage is
simply in a tracking mode, not an emergency mode. Id.
Appeal 2020-004418
Application 15/628,532

5
Whereas the Examiner interprets the claimed “emergency mode”
broadly to include the tracking mode of Armitage (Ans. 3.), the Examiner’s
interpretation fails to consult, and thus, is divorced from, Appellant’s
Specification. “Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the
Board’s construction ‘cannot be divorced from the specification and the
record evidence,’ and ‘must be consistent with the one that those skilled in
the art would reach.’” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292,
1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). The words of a claim are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention
when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history. See
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Appellant discloses:
Embodiments herein provide a robust and efficient lone
worker system, method, and/or computer program product
(herein collectively referred to as lone worker system) that
tracks and monitors building mechanics and elevator
technicians in case of an emergency. The lone worker system
utilizes triggers based on an activity in/of a mobile device, a
mobile device location, a service call duration, etc. to escalate a
normal situation to an emergency mode. Once in an emergency
mode, the lone worker system can send notifications to
supervisors, call center operators, and emergency responders
with respect to a length of time the lone worker system has
been in that emergency mode or other factors.
Spec., ¶ 28. Thus, Appellant discloses a “lone worker system . . . that tracks
and monitors building mechanics and elevator technicians . . . [and] utilizes
triggers . . . to escalate a normal situation to an emergency mode.” Thus,
Appeal 2020-004418
Application 15/628,532

6
contrary to the Examiner’s ungrounded definition, Appellant’s Specification
discloses and differentiates a “tracking mode” from an “emergency mode.”
We agree with Appellant that the claimed actions for which the
Examiner cites Armitage as occurring in an emergency mode, are actually
taught as occurring in a tracking mode. Thus, we fail to find the prior art
teaches the claimed limitation. Independent Claim 11 contains recitations
commensurate with those of Claim 1, discussed above. In view of the
foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 4–7, 9–11, 14–17,
19, and 20.

DECISION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–7, 9–
11, 14–17,
19, 20
103 Watson, Doyle,
Armitage, Leipzig,
Ben-Porath
1, 4–7, 9–
11, 14–17,
19, 20

REVERSED