Ex Parte Albrich et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 15, 2006

10439736 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 15, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte REINHARD ALBRICH and CHRISTOPH HINTEREGGER
____________

Appeal No. 2006-0409
Application No. 10/439,736
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before FRANKFORT, MCQUADE, and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1 to 6,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.

Appeal No. 2006-0409
Application No. 10/439,736

Παγε 2
The appellants’ invention relates to a system for monitoring the locking of safety
bars for chairs in a chairlift system (specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under
appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The Prior Art References
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Pearson 4,003,314 Jan. 18, 1977
Tremblay et al. (Tremblay) 5,533,594 Jul. 9, 1996
Yu 5,939,795 Aug. 17, 1999
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 to 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatenable over
Pearson in view of Tremblay and Yu.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed May 5, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (filed March 30, 2005) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.

OPINION
Appeal No. 2006-0409
Application No. 10/439,736

Παγε 3
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pearson in view of Tremblay and Yu. We initially note that the test
for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
The examiner is of the view that Pearson describes the invention of claim 1 (see
answer at page 3). The examiner relies on Tremblay for disclosing a safety interlock 58
for locking the seat in transport position and for disabling chairlift operation unless the
seat is locked in the transport position. Yu is relied on for disclosing a sensor for
monitoring the occupancy status of a seat and for monitoring operation of other devices
in the vehicle such as a seat belt. The examiner concludes:
. . . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to modify Pearson to include the use of a safety bar in
interaction with the operation of his advantageous apparatus as taught by
Tremblay et al in order to improve the safety of the apparatus. In addition,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to modify Pearson to incorporate the use of a second sensor
for monitoring the status of the locking bar in his advantageous apparatus
Appeal No. 2006-0409
Application No. 10/439,736

Παγε 4
as taught by Yu in order to prevent the operation of the apparatus while
improving on the safely of the apparatus [answer at page 4].

We agree with the appellants that there is no motivation to combine the
teachings of the cited prior art. Pearson is concerned with monitoring the number of
occupied chairs so as to increase efficiency in a multiple ski lift ski area (col. 1, lines 27
to 32). The proximity sensors 50 are used to determine whether there is a passenger in
a chair at a particular location (col. 5, lines 28 to 33). Pearson is not concerned with
securing a passenger in the seat. As such, in our view, there would be no motivation for
a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a sensor for determining whether or not a
safety bar of the given chair is locked.
In addition, Tremblay does not teach a sensor that senses the locking of a safety
bar. Rather, Tremblay describes a swivel mechanism for locking the seat in a transport
position and for disabling the chairlift operation unless the seat is in the transport
position (Figs 6 to 8; col. 1, lines 56 to 59; col. 9, line 36; col.10, line 65).

For the foregoing reasons, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection. The
decision of the examiner is reversed.
Appeal No. 2006-0409
Application No. 10/439,736

Παγε 5
REVERSED

CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. MCQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2006-0409
Application No. 10/439,736

Παγε 6
Learner and Greenberg, PA
P.O. Box 2480
Hollywood, FL 33022-2480

MEC/ki
Comment [jvn1]: Type address

APPEAL NO. 2006-0409
APPLICATION NO. 10/439,736

APJ CRAWFORD

APJ MCQUADE

APJ

DECISION:

PREPARED: May 13, 2006

OB/HD

PALM:

ACTS 2:

DISK (FOIA):

REPORT:

BOOK:

GAU:

44C1:

IFW in E. Cook's Incoming: