Ex parte Adifon et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2001

08995507 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of
the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte LEANDRE ADIFON and CARLO VARISCO
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-0784
Application No. 08/995,507
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before COHEN, FRANKFORT, and NASE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 6 through 20 and 22 through 24.
Subsequent to the final rejection and in response to
appellants' amendment filed November 1, 1999 (Paper No. 9),
Appeal No. 2000-0784
Application No. 08/995,507
2
the examiner has indicated the allowability of claims 4, 5 and
16 through 21. Claims 2 and 3 have been canceled. The above
actions leave only claims 1, 6 through 15 and 22 through 24
for our consideration on appeal.
Appellants' invention is directed to a hydraulic elevator
system for moving a car (14) within a hoistway (29) and, more
particularly, to such a system that does not require a
machineroom outside the hoistway for housing the hydraulic
components (i.e., fluid tank, pump and valves associated
therewith) and electronic controller for the system. In
appellants' hydraulic elevator system the fluid tank (22) and
pump (24) are located in the hoistway (Fig. 1), while the
valve block (54), manually operable release mechanism (58) and
electronic controller (48) are located outside the hoistway in
a cabinet (50) conveniently positioned adjacent to a landing
for the elevator (Fig. 2). Independent claims 1, 11 and 22
are representative of the subject matter on appeal and a copy
of those claims may be found in the Appendix to appellants'
brief.
Appeal No. 2000-0784
Application No. 08/995,507
3
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Rohanna 4,438,831 Mar. 27,
1984
Nakamura et al. (Nakamura) 4,830,146 May 16,
1989

Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being obvious over Nakamura.
Claims 11, 14, 15 and 22 through 24 also stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Nakamura.
Claims 1 and 6 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of
Rohanna.
Claims 11, 12 and 13 likewise stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of
Rohanna.
Appeal No. 2000-0784
Application No. 08/995,507
4
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 14, mailed February 11, 2000) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants'
brief (Paper No.

13, filed December 17, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 15,
filed April 13, 2000) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
With regard to the rejections relying on Nakamura under
Appeal No. 2000-0784
Application No. 08/995,507
5
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we have reviewed the applied patent and,
like appellants, find no teaching or disclosure therein of a
hydraulic elevator system like that specifically set forth in
claims 1, 11, 14, 15 and 22 through 24 on appeal. Looking
particularly at independent claims 1, 11 and 22, we share
appellants' view as expressed in the brief (pages 5-6) and in
the reply brief (pages 2-5) that Nakamura does not show or
describe a hydraulic elevator system wherein "the tank and
pump are disposed in [or within] the hoistway," while "a valve
block" (claim 1), "a release mechanism" (claim 11) or "a
control valve assembly" (claim 22) associated with control of
the elevator is "disposed outside the hoistway." The Nakamura
patent teaches either having all the hydraulic components in
the hoistway (Figs. 1-2) or moving the valve block along with
the hydraulic pump and motor outside the hoistway (col. 4,
lines 47-54) to thereby eliminate the need to service the
hydraulic devices in the elevator shaft. There is no
disclosure or suggestion in Nakamura of separating the valve
block (or control valve assembly) from the hydraulic pump, nor
of moving the valve block (or control valve assembly) outside
the hoistway while keeping the hydraulic pump inside the
Appeal No. 2000-0784
Application No. 08/995,507
6
hoistway. As for independent claim 11, Nakamura does not even
disclose a release mechanism like that described by appellants
(specification, page 5), nor an arrangement in a hydraulic
elevator system where the tank and pump of the system are
"disposed within the hoistway" and the release mechanism is
"disposed outside the hoistway" as required in claim 11 on
appeal.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejections of claims 1, 11, 14, 15 and 22 through
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nakamura.
As for the examiner's rejections of claims 1, 11, 14, 15
and 22 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Nakamura, for basically the same reasons as set forth
above, we find ourselves in agreement with appellants'
position that Nakamura provides no teaching or suggestion of a
hydraulic elevator system like that specifically set forth in
the enumerated rejected claims. See pages 7 and 8 of
appellants' brief and pages 5-6 of the reply brief for
appellants' position. The examiner's selection of only the
Appeal No. 2000-0784
Application No. 08/995,507
7
flow rate control valve (20) of Nakamura to be located outside
the hoistway is clearly contrary to the teachings of that
patent at column 4, lines 47-54, which disclosure suggests
that moving the control valve along with the hydraulic pump
and motor outside the hoistway serves to eliminate the need to
service those hydraulic devices in the elevator shaft. Like
appellants, we view the examiner's position as being a classic
example of hindsight reconstruction based on impermissible
hindsight derived from appellants' own teachings.
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejections of claims 1, 11, 14, 15 and 22 through 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Nakamura.
Regarding the examiner's additional rejections of claims
1, 6 through 10, 11, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on the collective teachings of Nakamura and Rohanna, we have
reviewed the applied patents and evaluated their teachings,
but find ourselves in agreement with appellants' position as
set forth on pages 11-14 of the brief and pages 6-7 of the
reply brief that the examiner has clearly not made out a prima
Appeal No. 2000-0784
Application No. 08/995,507
8
facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, for those reasons, we
have determined that the examiner's further rejections of
claims 1, 6 through 10, 11, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Nakamura in view of Rohanna will not be
sustained.
In light of the foregoing, we have refused to sustain
each and every one of the examiner's rejections before us on
appeal. Thus, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1,
6 through 15 and 22 through 24 of the present application
under either
Appeal No. 2000-0784
Application No. 08/995,507
9
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CEF:lbg
RANDY G. HENLEY
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
Appeal No. 2000-0784
Application No. 08/995,507
10
10 FARM SPRINGS
FARMINGTON, CT 06032