10897558 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2012)

Ex Parte Ehrenleitner

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 27, 2012

10897558 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2012)

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. 10/897,558 07/23/2004 Franz Ehrenleitner OST-041288 2628 22876 7590 08/27/2012 FACTOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, LTD. 1327 W. WASHINGTON BLVD. SUITE 5G/H CHICAGO, IL 60607 EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3654 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/27/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte FRANZ EHRENLEITNER ________________ Appeal 2010-000061 Application 10/897,558 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 2 decision finally rejecting claims 1-5. The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 3 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Olsen '542 (US 466,542, issued 4 Jan. 5, 1892) and Olsen '230 (US 4,664,230, issued May 12, 1987); and5 1 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Eisenmann Maschinebau KG. Appeal No. 2010-000061 Application No. 10/897,558 2 claims 2-5 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Olsen '542, Olsen '230, 1 Gottlieb (US 2001/0045326 A1, publ. Nov. 29, 2001) and Hautesseres 2 (FR 2 677 341 A3, publ. Dec. 11, 1992). We have jurisdiction under 3 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 4 We REVERSE. 5 Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal: 6 1. Lifting device for lifting and lowering a 7 load, the lifting device comprising: 8 a) a supporting structure, having a 9 bottom structure capable of being fastened to a 10 room floor and a top structure connected to the 11 bottom structure and arranged at a vertical distance 12 there above; 13 b) a lifting drum; 14 c) a drive, by which the lifting drum can 15 be set in rotation in both directions; 16 d) at least one flexible traction means, 17 which is secured by one end to the lifting drum and 18 at the other end carries a holding arrangement for 19 the load; 20 e) the flexible traction means being 21 capable of being wound up on and unwound from 22 the lifting drum by rotation of the latter, wherein 23 f) the lifting drum and the drive are 24 arranged in the vicinity of the bottom structure; 25 g) the traction means comprises a section 26 extending from the lifting drum to the top structure 27 and is led over at least one deflection roller 28 rotatably mounted on the top structure; 29 h) at least one additional flexible traction 30 means is included which is secured to the lifting 31 drum at one end; 32 Appeal No. 2010-000061 Application No. 10/897,558 3 i) which at least one additional flexible 1 traction means is guided from the lifting drum 2 upwards to at least one additional deflection roller 3 rotatably mounted on the top structure and from 4 there is guided back downwards; 5 j) a balancing weight is included which 6 is secured to the opposite end of the at least one 7 additional flexible traction means; and 8 k) the direction of winding up of the at 9 least one additional traction means being such that 10 the direction of movement of the balancing 11 weights runs opposite to that of the holding 12 arrangement with a given rotation of the lifting 13 drum. 14 As the Appellant correctly points out, neither Olsen '542 nor Olsen 15 '230 describes a lifting device including an additional flexible traction means 16 which is secured to the lifting drum at one end; which is guided from the 17 lifting drum upwards to at least one additional deflection roller rotatably 18 mounted on the top structure and from there is guided back downwards; and 19 which is secured to a balancing weight at the opposite end. (See Br. 9). The 20 Examiner does not find that Olsen '542 describes a lifting device satisfying 21 these limitations. (See Ans. 3-4). Olsen '230 does describe a lifting device 22 including a wire rope or cable 78 which is guided upwardly to a deflection 23 roller 90 and from there is guided back downwardly. Both ends of the wire 24 rope or cable 78 are secured to a counter weight structure 68.. (Olsen '230, 25 col. 4, ll. 53-66 and fig. 5). Neither end appears to be secured to the power 26 unit 42, however. (See Olsen '230, figs. 1, 2 and 5). 27 Therefore, neither Olsen '542 nor Olsen '230 describes at least one 28 limitation of claim 1. Since Olsen '230 teaches that the wire rope or cable 78 29 “fixes the relative positions of the counter weight structure and the carriage 30 Appeal No. 2010-000061 Application No. 10/897,558 4 but not for driving the cable . . .” (Olsen '230, col. 4, ll. 65-68), it is unlikely 1 that one of ordinary skill in the art familiar with the teachings of Olsen '230 2 would have been provided with reason to modify the lifting device of Olsen 3 '542 in the fashion claimed in claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of 4 claim 1 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Olsen '542 and Olsen 5 '230. 6 Neither the teachings of Gottlieb nor the teachings of Hautesseres 7 remedy the deficiency in the combined teachings of Olsen '542 and Olsen 8 '230 for purposes of the rejection of claims 2-5. Gottlieb describes an 9 elevator system designed specifically for an airplane. Gottlieb’s elevator 10 system has two drive belts 46, each of which is guided by an upper 11 deflection roller 45 mounted on a common shaft. (Gottlieb, para. 0041). 12 Gottlieb does not describe an elevator system including a balancing weight, 13 instead teaching that “certain known elevator principles, e.g., Koepe sheave 14 or driving disk with cable pull and load counterweights, and cable drum 15 wind-up are not even taken into consideration” in elevators for aircraft. 16 (Gottlieb, para. 0004). Hautesseres describes an elevator designed for 17 installation in an old building lacking sufficient space to install a balancing 18 weight. (Hautesseres 2). One of ordinary skill in the art familiar with the 19 teachings of Olsen '542, Olsen '230 and either Gottlieb or Hautesseres would 20 not have had reason to modify the lifting device of Olsen '542 to include an 21 additional flexible traction means which is secured to the lifting drum at one 22 end; which is guided from the lifting drum upwards to at least one additional 23 deflection roller rotatably mounted on the top structure and from there is 24 guided back downwards; and which is secured to a balancing weight at the 25 opposite end. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-5 under § 103(a) 26 Appeal No. 2010-000061 Application No. 10/897,558 5 as being unpatentable over Olsen '542, Olsen '230 and either Gottlieb or 1 Hautesseres. 2 3 DECISION 4 We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5. 5 6 REVERSED 7 8 9 JRG 10