Ex Parte AchDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 24, 201712450494 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/450,494 02/11/2010 Ernst Ach 11596-0120 7658 20694 7590 01/26/2017 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC ONE BOLAND DRIVE WEST ORANGE, NJ 07052 EXAMINER TRUONG, MINH D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3654 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2017 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): patent @ csglaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERNST ACH Appeal 2015-002820 Application 12/450,494 Technology Center 3600 Before JOHN C. KERINS, LEE L. STEPINA, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ernst Ach (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s April 17, 2014 final decision (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 16— 20 and 25—34.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Inventio AG. App. Br. 1. 2 Claims 1—15 are canceled, and claims 21—24 are withdrawn from consideration. Id. at 2. Appeal 2015-002820 Application 12/450,494 SUMMARY OF INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an elevator belt. Spec. 12.3 Claim 16, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below from page 12 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief: 16. An elevator belt, comprising: a belt body made from a first material; a tube arrangement made from a second material, the tube arrangement comprising at least one tube embedded in the belt body, an outer surface of each tube of the tube arrangement directly adjacent to, and entirely encased by, the belt body; and a tensile force carrier arrangement having at least one tensile force carrier, the at least one tensile force carrier disposed within the at least one tube of the tube arrangement, the at least one tensile force carrier completely encased within the at least one tube of the tube arrangement, wherein each tensile force carrier of the tensile force carrier arrangement is separated from the first material by each respective tube of the tube arrangement, wherein the second material is less susceptible to stress concentrations than the first material. REJECTIONS4 Claims 16—20 and 26—34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Baranda (US 6,295,799 Bl, iss. Oct. 2, 2001). Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baranda and Ach ’958 (US 2004/0216958 Al, pub. Nov. 4, 2004). 3 Citations herein to the Specification refer to the Substitute Specification filed on September 28, 2009. 4 The rejection of claim 16 as being anticipated by Kinoshita (US 6,132,328, iss. Oct. 17, 2000) has been withdrawn. Ans. 3. 2 Appeal 2015-002820 Application 12/450,494 ANALYSIS Anticipation Rejection The Examiner finds that Baranda discloses all of the elements of independent claim 16, including, inter alia, a belt body (coating layer 28)5, a tube arrangement (a plurality of center strands 200 in cord 26) including at least one tube (an individual center strand 200), and a tensile force carrier arrangement (a plurality of center wires 202 and corresponding outer wires 204 in cord 26)) including at least one tensile force carrier (an individual center wire 202 and corresponding outer wires 204). Final Act. 2—3 (citing Baranda 3:54, 5:19-22, Figs. 2, 5, 6). Appellant traverses, arguing, inter alia, that “Baranda elements 202 and 204 are not equivalent to the tensile force carriers of claim 16 and should not be construed as such.” App. Br. 8. Continuing, Appellant asserts that “Specification paragraph [0025] defines tensile force carriers as being ‘in the form of wire ropes made from stranded wires or wire strands,’” and argues that “[a]s such, the tensile force carriers of claim 16 should be considered equivalent to Baranda cord 26.” Id. We understand Appellant to be arguing that because Baranda’s cords 26 comprise outer strands 210 (which include wires 206, 208) twisted around center strand 200 (which includes wires 202, 204), wires 206, 208 forming outer strands 210 must also be construed as part of the recited tensile force carrier arrangement. Similarly, Appellant also argues that “Baranda describes only the central strand of a cord being encased in a polymer jacket. Baranda does not disclose the entire cord being encased in a polymer jacket.” App. Br. 6. 5 Parentheticals refer to the terminology of Baranda. 3 Appeal 2015-002820 Application 12/450,494 Continuing, Appellant asserts that, “[a]s such, Baranda does not disclose ‘wherein each tensile force carrier of the tensile force carrier arrangement is separated from the first material by each respective tube of the tube arrangement’ as recited in claim 16.” Id. Appellant also argues that “each tensile force carrier of the belt is required to be separated from the belt body by a tube.” Reply Br. 3. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner’s conclusion that only Baranda’s center strand 200, to the exclusion of outer strands 210, corresponds to the recited tensile force carrier arrangement is premised on the Examiner’s determination that “[outer strands] 210 are construed to be part of the belt body [(coating layer 28)].” See Ans. 6; see also id. at 3^4. We agree with Appellant (see, e.g., Reply Br. 2) that this determination is in error. Baranda discloses that outer strands 210 are formed by wires 206, 208. Baranda 4:53—56. Seven metallic wires (e.g., wires 206, 208) are twisted together to form a strand (e.g., strand 210), and seven strands (e.g., strands 200, 210) are twisted together to form cord 26. Id. at 3:54—56. A plurality of such metallic cords, which are preferably formed of a high carbon steel, are disposed within coating layer 28, which is preferably formed of a polyurethane material. Id. at 3:52—61, 6:13—14. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that outer strands 210 are not part of coating layer 28 as determined by the Examiner, but rather are tensile force carriers twisted about and working in conjunction with center strand 200. We further agree with Appellant that because Baranda’s outer strands 210 are not encased by jacket 212, they are not “separated from the first material” as required by claim 16. 4 Appeal 2015-002820 Application 12/450,494 Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 16 as being anticipated by Baranda. Regarding dependent claims 17—20 and 26—34, Baranda is not relied upon by the Examiner in any manner that would remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to the rejection of independent claim 16. The rejection of claims 17—20 and 26—34, therefore, is not sustained. Obviousness Rejection The Examiner determines that claim 25 is unpatentable over Baranda and Ach ’958, incorporating the findings and determinations regarding Baranda as made with independent claim 16. Final Act. 7. Because claim 25 depends from claim 16, and the Examiner’s use of Ach ’958 with respect to claim 25 does not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to claim 16, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16—20 and 25—34 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation