Ex Parte Wesson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

13996199 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/996,199 06/20/2013
87423 7590 07/02/2018
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.
55347US01 (U080003US) 9665
EXAMINER
TRAN,DIEMM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 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
Ex parte JOHN P. WESSON, GOP AL R. KRISHNAN, and
HUANZHANG
Appeal2017-008947
Application 13/996, 199
Technology Center 3600
Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 14--24, 26, 28--40, 42, 44--54, 56
and 58---65. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 "The real party in interest in this Appeal is the assignee, Otis Elevator
Company." (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal2017-008947
Application 13/996, 199
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention relates to "an elevator suspension and/ or
driving arrangement" for an "elevator system." (Spec. ,r 1.)
Illustrative Claim
1. An elevator system comprising:
an elevator car;
one or more sheaves; and
one or more belts operably connected to the car and
interactive with the one or more sheaves for suspending or
driving the elevator car, a belt of the one or more belts
comprising a plurality of wires arranged into a plurality of
cords, the cords arrayed laterally across a width of the belt, and
a jacket substantially retaining the one or more cords, wherein:
a cord ratio, between a smallest sheave diameter (D) of
the one or more sheaves of the elevator system that are
interactive with the belt and a largest cord diameter (de) of the
plurality of cords, (D/dc) is less than about 55; and
a wire ratio, between the smallest sheave diameter (D)
and the largest wire diameter ( dw) of the plurality of wires,
(D/dw) is between 180 and 300.
Baranda
Longatti
Osada
References
US 6,295,799 Bl
US 2003/0206419 Al
JP 2006-240819
Rejections
Oct. 2, 2001
Nov. 6, 2003
Sept. 14, 2006
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 12, 14--24, 26, 28-29,
31--40, 42, 44--45, 47-54, 56, 58---60, and 62---65 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Osada and Baranda. (Final Action 2.)2
2 Although the Examiner omits dependent claim 26 in the listing of claims in
the heading for this rejection (see Final Action 2), the limitations recited
therein are addressed in the body of the rejection (see id. at 4), and thus we
2
Appeal2017-008947
Application 13/996, 199
The Examiner rejects claims 11, 30, 46, and 61 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Osada, Baranda, and Longatti. (Final
Action 6.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 19, 35, and 51 are the independent claims on appeal, with
rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2--4, 6-8, 10-12, 14--18, 19--24, 26,
28-34, 36--40, 42, 44--50, 52-54, 56 and 58---65) depending therefrom. (See
Appeal Br., Claims App.).
Independent claims 1, 19, 35, and 51 recite "sheaves" and a "belt" that
interact to "suspend[] or driv[ e ]" an elevator car. (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
In the claimed belt, "a plurality of wires [are] arranged into a plurality of
cords," the cords are arrayed or arranged "laterally across a width of the
belt," and the cords are retained by a 'jacket." (Id.) Independent claims 1,
19, 35, and 51 further require a certain "wire ratio" between the "smallest
sheave diameter" and the "largest wire diameter." (J d.)
The Examiner's obviousness rejections are premised upon Osada
disclosing a "cord" possessing the claimed wire ratio and upon Baranda
teaching that a plurality of wire-containing cords can be "arranged laterally
across a width" and retained by a 'jacket." (Final Action 5.) According to
the Examiner, it would have been obvious "to coat the cords as taught in
Osada in a jacket as taught in Baranda for distribution of loads and
flexibility." (Id.)
consider this omission inadvertent. The Appellants' briefing likewise
reflects an understanding that claim 26 is a rejected claim on appeal. (See
Appeal Br. 2, 9.)
3
Appeal2017-008947
Application 13/996, 199
The Appellants contend that, in Osada, the component allegedly
possessing the claimed wire ratio is a "governor rope." (Appeal Br. 6.) The
Examiner maintains that "governor and suspension ropes" are "both used in
the elevator art," "experience many of the same stresses and conditions as
other ropes in an elevator," and "are known to one of ordinary skill in the
elevator art." (Answer 2.) In other words, according to the Examiner, one
of ordinary skill in the elevator art, when investigating appropriate wire
ratios for a suspension rope, would look to Osada's teachings on a wire ratio
used in a governor rope.
However, as pointed out by the Appellants, "what is claimed is not a
suspension rope, but a belt including a plurality of cords." (Appeal Br. 6.)
And the Examiner does not explain adequately why one of ordinary skill in
the art, when producing a suspension belt having a plurality of wire-
containing cords per Baranda's teachings, would infer that a wire ratio used
in a governor rope, or even a suspension rope, should be adopted.
In this regard, we note that the Examiner's finding that Osada teaches
the claimed wire ratio is based upon this reference disclosing a "smallest
sheave diameter" of" 1 OOmm" and a "largest wire diameter" of "0.4mm."
(Final Action 3.) However, Baranda teaches that, for a sheave diameter of
"around 100 millimeters" each wire should be "less than 0.25 millimeters in
diameter." (Baranda, col. 4, 11. 14--27.) This suggests that one of ordinary
skill in the elevator art, looking to achieve the Examiner's stated objective of
"distribution of loads and flexibility" (Final Action 5), would, if anything,
shy away from the wire ratio purportedly taught by Osada.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by the Appellants' position that the
Examiner does not adequately establish that the elevator system, the belts,
4
Appeal2017-008947
Application 13/996, 199
and the method recited in the independent claims on appeal would have been
obvious over the prior art. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claims 1, 19, 35, and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Osada and Baranda.
The Examiner's further findings and determinations with respect to
the dependent claims (see Final Action 3---6) do not compensate for the
above-discussed shortcoming in the rejection of the independent claims.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 3,
6-8, 10, 12, 14-18,20-24,26,28-29,31-34,36-40,42,44-45,47-50,
52-54, 56, 58---60, and 62---65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Osada and Baranda; and we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 11, 30, 46, and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Osada, Baranda, and Longatti.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 6-8, 10-12,
14--24, 26, 28--40, 42, 44--54, 56 and 58-65.
REVERSED
5