Ex Parte Wesson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 1, 201613059093 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/059,093 02/15/2011 87423 7590 09/06/2016 Cantor Colburn LLP - Otis Elevator INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR John P. Wesson 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. PA0001185U-U72.12-50KL 6811 EXAMINER SIV ANESAN, SIV ALINGAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2126 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/06/2016 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 @cantorcolburn.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 Exparte JOHN P. WESSON, MAURO J. ATALLA, STELLA M. OGGIANU, and WILLIAM A. VERONESI 1 Appeal2015-001762 Application 13/059,093 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM.2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Otis Elevator Company. See Appeal Brief 1. 2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed Feb. 15, 2011 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed Jan. 16, 2014; (3) the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed June 16, 2014; and (4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed Sept. 5, 2014. Appeal2015-001762 Application 13/059,093 BACKGROUND According to Appellants, the application relates to a system and method that manages power from a secondary power source to supply power to elevator and building systems after failure of a primary power source. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized: 1. A system for managing power from a secondary power source to supply power to an elevator system and to building systems after failure of a primary power source, the system comprising: an available power monitor operable to provide an indication of power available from the secondary power source; a demand monitoring system operable to generate a signal related to passenger demand for each elevator in the elevator system; and a controller configured to prioritize allocation of power from the secondary power source to the elevator system and to the building systems based on the indication of power available from the secondary power source and the passenger demand in the elevator system. REFERENCES The art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Suga et al. ("Suga") Wesson et al. ("Wesson") US 6,460,658 B2 US 2009/0218175 Al REJECTION Oct. 8, 2002 Sept. 3, 2009 Claims 1-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wesson and Suga. Final Act. 2. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejection and issues raised by the Appellants. We have not considered other possible 2 Appeal2015-001762 Application 13/059,093 issues that have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Wesson and Suga teaches or suggests "a controller configured to prioritize allocation of power from the secondary power source to the elevator system and to the building systems based on the indication of power available from the secondary power source and the passenger demand in the elevator system," as recited in claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Wesson and Suga teaches or suggests "determining whether the power available from the secondary power source is below a threshold; and prioritizing power supplied to the elevator system higher than power supplied to the building system to service remaining passenger demand if the power available from the secondary power source is below the threshold," as recited in claim 4? 3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Wesson and Suga teaches or suggests "a plurality of power control devices each connected between the secondary power source and a component of the building systems to control power delivered from the secondary power source to the component," as recited in claim 7? 3 Appeal2015-001762 Application 13/059,093 DISCUSSION 35 U.S.C. § 103: Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-14, 17-20, 22, and 24-28 After review of Appellants' arguments and the Examiner's findings and reasoning, we determine Appellants have not identified error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer. See Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 1 7. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusion and add the following for emphasis and completeness. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that "Wes son teaches a system in which a controller prioritizes allocation of power among the elevator system and other building systems based on an indication of power available from the secondary power source and passenger demand in the elevator system." Final Act. 3; Ans. 17 (citing Wesson i-fi-1 20 and 21 ). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Wesson's controller 31, which "may sense the load in elevators 12a-12c and schedule operation of hoist motors 18a-18c, respectively, to minimize drain on the accumulated power." Ans. 17 (citing Wesson i-fi-120 and 21 ). In response, Appellants contend: Wesson does not disclose "allocating" power between the elevator system and building systems, let alone allocating power "based on the indication of power available from the secondary power source and the passenger demand in the elevator system. " While building systems are connected to DC bus 11 (which is coupled to battery storage module 52 or capacitive storage module 54), there is no controller allocating power from the DC bus 11 between the elevator system and building systems. There is simply no controller deciding how to allocate secondary power in Wesson. Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis added). 4 Appeal2015-001762 Application 13/059,093 We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner correctly finds that Wesson's "controller 31 balances positive and negative power demand of components connected to common DC bus 11 to minimize the rate of power draw from common DC bus 11" in the event of a power failure (i.e., prioritizes allocation of secondary power). Ans. 17; See, e.g., Wesson i-f 21. Wesson teaches power demand is balanced by controller 31 based upon "the event of a total power failure, a partial power failure (i.e., a brown-out condition), or a malfunction in power supply 20" (which event suggests an indication of power available) and based upon information received from cab weight sensors 15a-15c ("[ c ]ontroller 31 uses the information from cab weight sensors 15a-15c to further control distribution of power to and from common DC bus 11," which suggests passenger demand.). Wesson i-fi-1 19-21. Wesson, therefore, teaches or at least suggests controller 31 prioritizes "allocation of power . . . based on the indication of power available from the secondary power source and the passenger demand in the elevator system," as recited in claim 1. Appellants contend "Wes son does not disclose 'allocating' power between the elevator system and building systems." Appeal Br. 6. We disagree. Wesson teaches elevator hoist motors 18a-18c ( "elevator system") and "elevator hall call buttons or destination entry system located outside elevators" ("building systems") are each connected with, and hence regulated by, common DC bus 11. Wesson i-fi-1 19-21. Because Wesson further teaches controller 31 balances power demand to minimize the rate of power drawn from common DC bus 11 by components connected to and powered by common DC bus 11, we disagree with Appellants contention 5 Appeal2015-001762 Application 13/059,093 that Wesson does not teach or suggest allocating power between "the elevator system" and "the building systems," as claimed. Wes son i-f 21. We therefore sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 12 and 18, which Appellants argue are patentable for similarly unpersuasive reasons. Appeal Br. 8-10 and 12-13. Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8- 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 24--28. Appeal Br. 7. Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejections of these dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 35U.S.C.§103: Claim 4, 15, and21 Appellants contend claim 4 "is patentable over Wesson in view of Suga." Appeal Br. 6-7. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find that the Examiner has set forth with specificity how the combination of Wesson and Suga teaches or at least suggests the invention as recited. Final Act. 6-7. Appellants argue that Wesson fails to mention a threshold. Appeal Br. 6. We disagree, noting that Wesson teaches or at least suggests a threshold in Wesson's actions to "minimize drain on the energy stored in battery storage module 52 and capacitive storage module 54" during a power failure. Wesson i-f 25. That is, Wesson teaches or suggests such energy conservation tactics begin when power from the secondary power sources falls below a threshold. Appellants argue Wesson minimizes power to the elevator system and not to the building system. Appeal Br. 6. We disagree. Wesson discusses 6 Appeal2015-001762 Application 13/059,093 using stored energy during a power failure for limited emergency and rescue operation of elevators. Wesson ,-r 27. We find that Wesson teaches or suggests such elevator rescue operations require prioritizing limited power resources to Wesson's power hoist motors 18a-18c and other elevator emergency functions over Wesson's non-emergency building functions. Id. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein (Final Act. 6-7) and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4. Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the rejection of dependent claims 15 and 21, which recite similar limitations. Appeal Br. 10-11. Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejections of these dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 35U.S.C.§103: Claim 7, 16, and 23 Appellants contend claim 7 is patentably distinguishable from Wesson because "Wesson shows no switches or other power control devices between DC bus 11 and building systems." Appeal Br. 8. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the Examiner set forth with specificity why Wesson teaches the disputed limitation. Final Act. 7. For example, the Examiner relies upon Wesson's "battery storage module 52" and "capacitive storage module 54," as described at paragraphs 23 and 24 of Wesson to teach or suggest "a plurality of power control devices," as claimed. Id. We adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein (Id.) and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7. Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the rejection of dependent claims 16 and 23, 7 Appeal2015-001762 Application 13/059,093 which recite similar limitations. Appeal Br. 7. Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejections of these dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wesson and Suga is affirmed. 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation