Ex Parte Ericson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13201652 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/201,652 08/16/2011
64779 7590 10/04/2016
CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
400 W MAPLE STE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard J. Ericson
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.
60469-448 PUSl; 7281-US 2196
EXAMINER
TRUONG, MINH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
frederic.tenney@otis.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD J. ERICSON, STEPHEN R. NICHOLS,
DARYL J. MARVIN, and HAROLD TERRY
Appeal2014-009151
Application 13/201,652
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Richard J. Ericson et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) claims 1
and 2 as anticipated by Loomis (US 3,601,938; iss. Aug. 31, 1971) and
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 3 and 4 as unpatentable over Loomis
and Friedman (US 2006/0054419 Al; pub. Mar. 16, 2006); and (2) claims 5,
7-9, and 12-20 as unpatentable over Loomis and Korhonen (US 5,520,264;
iss. May 28, 1996). Claims 6, 10, and 11 have been withdrawn from
consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2014-009151
Application 13/201,652
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to an elevator system with a guide
rail bracket. See Spec. (Title), Figs. 3, 4, 5. Claims 1 and 15 are
independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A door frame assembly useful in an elevator system,
compnsmg:
a plurality of door frame members including a header, a
sill and jambs, the door frame members being configured to be
located in a desired position along a hoistway; and
at least one guide rail bracket supported by at least one of
the door frame members, the guide rail bracket being moveable
relative to the at least one of the door frame members between
a handling position in which at least a base of the guide rail
bracket is generally parallel with at least one of the header or the
sill and a deployed position in which at least the base of the guide
rail bracket is generally perpendicular to the at least one of the
header or the sill, the at least one guide rail bracket being situated
for facilitating installing a guide rail in the elevator system in the
deployed position.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Loomis
Claims 1 and 2
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "the at least one guide
rail bracket being situated for facilitating installing a guide rail in the
elevator system in the deployed position." Appeal Br. 8, Claims App. The
Examiner finds that Loomis discloses the limitations of claims 1 including
that "guide rail bracket 80 [of Loomis] is capable of facilitating the
installation of the guide rail." See Final Act. 2-3; see also Ans. 3.
2
Appeal2014-009151
Application 13/201,652
Appellants contend that "[w]hen one reads the text of [Loomis] in
proper context, it becomes evident that the guide rails 14 in that reference
are installed before the door frame members are installed." Appeal Br. 3. In
particular Appellants contend:
[I]n column 4, beginning at line 50 [of Loomis], completing the
installation of the elevator shaft entrance is described as
including situating the clamps 86 and their associated header
support brackets 80 "into their proper positions along their
respective elevator car guide rails 14" where they are secured in
position once the elevator shaft entrance construction has been
rendered plum [sic]. That text indicates that the guide rails are
already in place. It follows that the Loomis reference does not
teach that the hanger header support brackets 80 are situated to
facilitate installing a guide rail in an elevator system.
Appeal Br. 4--5.
Loomis discloses that "[t]he apex of each hanger header support
bracket 80 is drilled to receive an inwardly-projecting pin 84 secured to a
guide rail clamp 86 (FIG. 3) \vhich engages the outer flange 88 of the
adjacent elevator shaft guide rail 14." Loomis, 2:31-35 (emphasis added);
see also Appeal Br. 3--4. Loomis further discloses that "[t]he hanger support
bracket 80 serves as a leveling adjustment as well as a spacer, locator and
structural support for the entire elevator entrance construction 10. Id. at
2:47--49. Loomis also discloses that
the J-bolts 90 and their clamps 86 (FIGS. 1 and 3) have been
moved by their pivotal connections 84 with their respective
hanger header support brackets 80 into their proper positions
along their respective elevator car guide rails 14 and fixedly
secured in position by tightening their clamping nuts 96 upon the
threaded end portions 95 of their J-bolts 90 when the elevator
shaft entrance construction has been rendered plumb.
3
Appeal2014-009151
Application 13/201,652
Id. at 4:50-57 (emphasis added); see also Appeal Br. 4-5. In other words, it
is our understanding that elevator car guide rails 14 of Loomis are in place
("deployed") prior to any engagement with hanger header support brackets
80. See Appeal Br. 4--5. As such, Loomis fails to disclose that hanger
header support brackets 80 facilitate the installation of guide rail 40 in the
elevator system in the deployed position. Consequently, the Examiner fails
to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Loomis anticipates the
device of claim 1.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 as anticipated by Loomis.
Obviousness over Loomis and Friedman
Claims 3 and 4
The Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 4 as unpatentable over
Loomis and Friedman is based on the same unsupported findings discussed
above with respect to the rejection of claim 1. See Final Act 3--4. The
Examiner does not rely on Friedman to remedy the deficiency of Loomis.
Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above for the rejection of
claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 4 as
unpatentable over Loomis and Friedman.
Obviousness over Loomis and Korhonen
Claims 5, 7-9, and 12-14
Claims 5, 7-9, and 12-14 depend either directly or indirectly from
claim 1. The Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 7-9, and 12-14 as
unpatentable over Loomis and Korhonen is based on the same unsupported
findings discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1. See Final
Act 4--9. The Examiner does not rely on Korhonen to remedy the deficiency
4
Appeal2014-009151
Application 13/201,652
of Loomis. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above for the
rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5,
7-9, and 12-14 as unpatentable over Loomis and Korhonen.
Claims 15-20
Appellants argue claims 15-20 together. See Appeal Br. 6-7. We
select claim 15 for review. Claims 16-20 stand or fall with claim 15. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Loomis discloses claim 15 substantially as
claimed. See Final Act. 5-7. The Examiner finds that
Korhonen teaches a guide rail bracket (fig. 1) for an elevator ...
wherein the guide rail bracket comprises: a car guide rail support
arm (2) near a first end (bottom end as seen in fig. 2) of the base,
the car guide rail support arm being adapted to secure a
corresponding portion of a car guide rail ( 4) in a desired position
within a hoistway; and a plurality of counterweight guide rail
support arms ( 1) between the car guide rail support arm and a
second, opposite end of the base (upper end as seen in fig. 2), the
countef'v'l1eight guide rail support arms each being adapted to
secure a corresponding portion of a counterweight guide rail (3)
in a desired position within a hoistway.
Id. at 7. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Loomis by replacing the bracket of Loomis with the bracket of Korhonen
"as a compact mean[ s] of having one integral structure for holding onto the
guide rails." Id. at 8-9; see also Ans. 7.
Appellants contend:
[T]he arrangement from the Korhonen reference will not allow
for the hanger header support function of the bracket 80 in the
Loomis reference to be realized in the manner taught by that
reference. The U-shaped members of the Korhonen reference
are significantly different than the arrangement of the bracket 80
in the Loomis reference.
5
Appeal2014-009151
Application 13/201,652
Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal Br. 6-7.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. We acknowledge that the
brackets of Loomis and Korhonen are different. However, Appellants do not
explain how replacing the bracket of Loomis with the bracket of Korhonen
would not allow for the modified Loomis device to provide proper support
function. See Appeal Br. 6-7; see also Reply Br. 3. Neither do Appellants
provide any evidence or argument sufficient to show that the proposed
modification would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, to the extent that Appellants are arguing the references must be
capable of bodily incorporation in order to combine their teachings, the test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of a primary reference. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). "Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art." Id. (citations omitted); see also ii .. ns. 7. l\1oreover, Appellants do
not apprise us of error in the Examiner's reasoning for combining the
teachings of Loomis and Korhonen. See Appeal Br. 6-7; see also Reply Br.
3; Final Act. 8-9.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 15 as unpatentable over Loomis and
Korhonen. We further sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 16-20,
which fall with claim 15.
6
Appeal2014-009151
Application 13/201,652
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 7-9,
and 12-14.
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 15-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7