Ex Parte Billard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2018

14349734 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/349,734 04/04/2014
87423 7590 07/17/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - Otis Elevator
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Justin Billard
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.
59333US 1 (U320011US) 2704
EXAMINER
RIEGELMAN, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2018 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 JUSTIN BILLARD and ZBIGNIEW PIECH
Appeal2017-009152
Application 14/349,734 1
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Justin Billard and Zbigniew Piech ("Appellants") seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1-17. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellants identify Otis Elevator Company as the real party in interest
(Br. 2).
Appeal2017-009152
Application 14/349,734
THE INVENTION
The invention "relates to braking systems for elevators." (Spec.
para. 1).
Claim 1 is representative, and is reproduced below:
1. A braking system for an elevator system comprising:
two or more braking surfaces disposed at an elevator car
and frictionally engageable with a rail of the elevator system,
each braking surface affixed to a braking plate;
one or more actuators operably connected to the elevator
car operably connected to at least one braking surface of the two
or more braking surfaces and configured to urge engagement
and/ or disengagement of the at least one braking surface with the
rail to stop and/or hold the elevator car during operation of the
elevator system via articulation of the braking plate and the
braking surface toward the rail; and
one or more braking guides extending through the braking
plate to maintain a selected distance between the two or more
braking surfaces and the rail prior to engagement of the braking
system.
Br. 7 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Lindegger
Skalski et al.
("Skalski")
Gremaud et al.
("Gremaud")
us 5,007,505
us 6,161,653
US 2007/0272500 Al
The following rejections are before us for review:
Apr. 16, 1991
Dec. 19, 2000
Nov. 29, 2007
1. Claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9--12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Skalski.
2
Appeal2017-009152
Application 14/349,734
2. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Skalski.
3. Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Skalski and Lindegger.
4. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Skalski and Gremaud.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9--12, 14, and 15 under 35 USC§ 102(b)
as being anticipated by Skalski.
The Appellants argue these claims as a group. See Br. 4---6. We select
claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining
claims 2--4, 6, 7, 9--12, 14, and 15 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Appellants argue that Skalski does not disclose "one or more
braking guides extending through the braking plate to maintain a selected
distance between the two or more braking surfaces and the rail prior to
engagement of the braking system." Br. 4--5. According to the Appellants,
claim 1 requires that "the braking guides maintain a [] selected distance
between the braking surfaces and the rail, not between the two braking
surfaces as in Skalski." Id. at 5.
The Examiner's position is that Skalski discloses "one or more
braking guides (70) extending through the braking plate (64,66) to maintain
a selected distance (62) between the two or more braking surfaces (58,60)
and the rail (14) prior to engagement of the braking system (30)." Final
Act. 3. See also, Ans. 3 ("[b]raking guide 70 extends through the braking
3
Appeal2017-009152
Application 14/349,734
plate 64 and 66 to maintain a selected distance ( 62) between the two or more
braking surfaces 58 and 60 and the rail 14.").
We agree with the Examiner.
Skalski discloses that "gap 62 is adjusted and maintained by air gap
adjuster 70" (Skalski col. 7, 11. 44--45). Figure 7 of Skalski depicts air
gap 62 as the distance between brake lining 5 8 and stem 15 of rail 14.
Skalski further discloses that "[ o ]nee gap 62 is adjusted to a satisfactory
level[,] lock nut 7 6 is tightened against end plate 64 thereby fixing the
position of brake linings 58, 60 relative to stem [ 15] while coil is
energized." (Skalski col. 7, 11. 53-56) (emphasis added). Thus, Skalski
discloses maintaining a selected distance between the two braking surfaces
and the rail (stem), and not only between the two braking surfaces as
asserted by the Appellants.
Br. 5.
The Appellants further argue:
the claimed braking system and braking guides differ from that
disclosed in Skalski in that the braking guides of the claims
allow for compensation [for] deviation in rail position along the
hoistway, and [adjust] the position of the braking system
relative to the rail accordingly to maintain the selected gap
between the braking surface and the rail.
The difficulty with the Appellants' argument is that it is not
commensurate with the scope of what is claimed. Claim 1 is not limited so
as to have the "braking guides of the claims allow for compensation [for]
deviation in rail position along the hoistway." Id. The same is true regarding
"[adjusting] the position of the braking system relative to the rail
accordingly to maintain the selected gap between the braking surface and the
4
Appeal2017-009152
Application 14/349,734
rail." Id. The Appellants do not explain and we do not see how the
arrangement as claimed necessarily leads to said possible behavior.
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant's specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The Appellants point to a disclosure of variation in the rail position in
paragraph 24 of the Appellants' Specification in distinguishing Skalski from
each of the independent claims (Br. 5). But limitations appearing in the
Specification, and not recited in the claims, should not be read into the
claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without
importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily).
We have fully considered the Appellants' arguments. For the
foregoing reasons, they are unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of
claim 1, and claims 2--4, 6, 7, 9--12, 14, and 15, which fall with claim 1.
The rejection is sustained.
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 US.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Skalski.
The rejection of claims 5 and 13 under 35 US. C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Skalski and Lindegger.
The rejection of claims 8 and 16 under 35 US.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Skalski and Gremaud.
5
Appeal2017-009152
Application 14/349,734
The Appellants do not separately argue the rejections of dependent
claims 5, 8, 13, 16, and 17. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of claims 5,
8, 13, 16, and 17 for the reasons discussed above regarding independent
claims 1 and 9.
CONCLUSIONS
The Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9--12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Skalski.
The Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Skalski.
The Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 5 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Skalski
and Lindegger.
The Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Skalski
and Gremaud.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-17 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).
AFFIRMED
6