Ex Parte Kalhan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 1, 2014

11719308 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ASHOK KALHAN and SURESH DHARMARAJ
________________

Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before NEAL E. ABRAMS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER,
and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Ashok Kalhan and Suresh Dharmaraj (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-
14, 16, and 18-25. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We AFFIRM
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to an elevator hoistway entrance
assembly and method of assembling an elevator hoistway entrance:
Claims 1, 5, and 16 are illustrative of the claims on appeal and are
reproduced below:

Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308

2

1. An elevator hoistway entrance assembly comprising:
a snap-fit connection that secures a first hoistway
entrance member to a second hoistway
entrance member, and at least one of the first hoistway
entrance member or the second hoistway
entrance member comprises a jamb and the other
comprises a sill.

5. An elevator hoistway entrance assembly comprising:
a snap-fit connection that secures a first hoistway
entrance member to a second hoistway entrance member, the
snap-fit connection including at least one receiver and at least
one securing member that is at least partially received in the
receiver in a first position and is moveable into a second
position to secure the first hoistway entrance member to the
second hoistway entrance member, wherein the first hoistway
entrance member and the second hoistway entrance member
include respective openings that align when the securing
member is in the second position; and a locking member
received at least partially into the respective openings.

16. A method of assembling an elevator hoistway entrance
comprising:
snap-fitting a first hoistway entrance member and a
second hoistway entrance member together by moving at least
one of the first hoistway entrance member or the second
hoistway entrance member in a first direction to an insertion
position and moving at least one of the first hoistway entrance
member or the second hoistway entrance member in a second
direction to a secured position, wherein at least one of the first
hoistway entrance member or the second hoistway entrance
member comprises a jamb and the other comprises a sill.

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER

Loomis U.S. 3,686,808 Aug, 29, 1972
Rosenband U.S. 4,106,630 B1 Aug. 15, 1978
Byfield WO 01/36761 A1 May 25, 2001
Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308

3

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8-14, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Loomis.
Claims 5-7, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Loomis and Rosenband.
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Loomis and Byfield.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8-14, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 23 as anticipated by
Loomis.
(I)
Claim 1 recites:
An elevator hoistway entrance assembly comprising:
a snap-fit connection that secures a first hoistway
entrance member to a second hoistway
entrance member, and at least one of the first hoistway
entrance member or the second hoistway
entrance member comprises a jamb and the other
comprises a sill.
Emphasis added.
(II)
(i) The Examiner rejects claim 1 as anticipated by Loomis stating:
Loomis discloses an elevator hoistway entrance assembly
comprising: a snap-fit connection 106, 116, 119 that secures a
first hoistway entrance member 103 to a second hoistway
entrance member 24, and at least one of the first hoistway
entrance member or the second hoistway entrance member
comprises a jamb and the other comprises a sill.
Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308

4

Ans. 5 (emphasis added). The Examiner construed a sill to mean “a
horizontal member that bears an upright or jamb member of a frame.” Ans.
12. In this portion of the rejection, the Examiner asserts that the elongated
strip 103, in its own right, is a “sill” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner
supports this assertion with a claim interpretation of the term “sill” as
follows, “[t]he claim does not recite any particular language that would
structurally distinguish the sill 103 of Loomis to (sic) the claimed ‘sill.’"
Ans. 12.
(ii) The Examiner also states:
Loomis indeed discloses a sill 50 which includes 103. Sill 50
includes several components: a sill support 52 including an
elongated strip 103 which is welded to the sill support 52.
Element 103 which is welded to elongated strips 30 and 38 that
form the sill support 32, thus forms part of the sill. Hence
element 103 is a sill. See Col 2, Ln 2; Col 3, Ln 14-19.
Ans. 11–12 (emphasis added). Thus, in this portion of the rejection, the
Examiner asserts that the elongated strip 103 is part of an assembly of
several components that together comprise the sill. Therefore, according to
the Examiner, the recited “secur[ing] a first hoistway entrance member to a
second hoistway entrance” from claim 1 is satisfied because the elongated
strip 103 (as part of the sill assembly) is secured to another component
correlating to the recited “jamb.”
(III)
(i) Appellants traverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection, stating:
Appellant respectfully submits that the Examiner has
mischaracterized the disclosure of Loomis by asserting that the
disclosed elongated strip 103 is a sill despite Loomis' clear
disclosure of a separate sill 50 and elongated strip 103. Due
Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308

5

at least to this improper characterization of Loomis' disclosure,
the pending claims are allowable.

Appeal Br. 4 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Appellants assert that the
elongated strip 103 is not a “sill” as recited in claim 1.
(ii) As for the Examiner’s assertion regarding the elongated strip 103
being one of several components that together qualify as the recited sill,
Appellants state:
In the Advisory Action dated 11/7/2011, the Examiner
further argued that the elongated strip 103 is a sill, because the
sill 50 includes a sill support 52 and elongated strip 103 that is
welded to the sill support 52. This argument is flawed for
several reasons. First, element 52 is a guide channel in the sill,
not a sill support as asserted by the Examiner (col. 2,11. 10-14).
Second, the Examiner's interpretation is not reasonably
justified because Loomis does not disclose that the sill 50
‘includes’ the elongated strip 103. The elongated strip 103 is
part of the sill and jamb supporting structure 30 and is thereby
distinguished from the sill 50 which it helps to support. The
Examiner's assertion is akin to arguing that a person's
finger is an elbow because they are connected through other
body parts.
Appeal Br. 4 (emphasis added), see also Reply Br. 2.
(IV)
(i) Regarding Appellants’ argument that the elongated strip 103 does not
correlate to the recited sill, we agree with Appellants to the extent that
Loomis explicitly names the component 50 a “sill” and refers to the
component 103 as the “elongated strip.” However, we disagree with
Appellants regarding whether the elongated strip 103 correlates to the
recited “sill” as this word is used in claim 1. Appellants have pointed to no
particular definition in the record that would exclude the elongated strip 103
from the definition of a sill. Rather, Appellants assert that the Examiner’s
Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308

6

construction of the term sill is “unreasonably broad” and could “encompass
virtually any member connected in the structure without regard for its
structure and location.” Appeal Br. 5. Next, Appellants assert “Loomis
itself provides evidence to the contrary by explicitly identifying elongated
strip 103 as part of the sill support structure while identifying element 50 as
the sill.” Appeal Br. 5.
We do not find Appellants’ assertions persuasive. The Examiner
construed a sill to mean “a horizontal member that bears an upright or jamb
member of a frame.” Ans. 12. As we noted above, Appellants have pointed
to no alternative construction of the term “sill,” and we find no alternative in
the Specification. Additionally, our review of a dictionary definition of the
term reveals only one definition fitting the context of the Specification, and
this definition does not support Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner’s
definition is unreasonably broad.1
As for Appellants’ assertion that Loomis uses the term “sill”
specifically for the component 50 and not for the elongated strip 103, we
note that there is no ipsissimis verbis test for determining whether a
reference discloses a claim element, i.e., identity of terminology is not
required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The elongated
strip 103 satisfies the claim constructions set forth by the Examiner as is
evident from review of figure 2 of Loomis reproduced below.

1 The most applicable dictionary definition of “sill” is “a horizontal piece (as
a timber) that forms the lowest member or one of the lowest members of a
framework or supporting structure: as…the threshold of a door.”
WEBSTER'S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, 1092 (1998).
Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308

7

Figure 2 of Loomis depicts a top view (taken along section line 2-2 in
figure 1) of the hoistway entrance. This figure shows the elongated strip 103
next to the component 50 (labeled a “sill” in Loomis). As is evident from
figure 3 above, the elongated strip 103 extends horizontally along the sill 50.
Figure 1 of Loomis (a portion of which is reproduced below) more
clearly depicts the snap-fit structure 106, 116, 119, connected to the jamb
24.
Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308

8

This portion of figure 1 of Loomis depicts the assembly shown in
figure 2 cut along line 1-1.
Loomis describes the arrangement depicted in figures 1 and 2 as
follows:
Welded to the vertical flange 38 of the channel member
32 is an elongated strip 103, preferably of stainless steel, near
each of the opposite ends of which is similarly secured the
downwardly bent attachment portion or tab 104 of a jamb-
connection bracket 106. The bracket 106 is of generally
channel-shaped configuration with the attachment portion 104
integral with and at right angles to the horizontal flange 108,
from which the vertical web 110 projects upward to a shorter
horizontal flange 112 at the top thereof (FIGS. 1 and 2). The
horizontal flange 108 is drilled with spaced holes 114 (FIG. 2)
to receive holddown bolts 115 extending into the floor 20. The
vertical web 110 of each jamb-connection bracket 106 is
provided with a pair of horizontally spaced aligned keyhole
slots 116 (FIG. 1) adapted to receive the heads and shanks of
screws 118 threaded into nuts 120 and shouldered headed studs
119 (FIG. 2) which are respectively welded and riveted to
Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308

9

bridge members 122 welded or otherwise secured to the inner
surfaces of the door jambs 24 and 25.
Loomis, col. 3, ll. 14–35. Accordingly, at each end, the elongated strip 103
includes a tab 104 of a jamb-connection bracket 106. The jamb-connection
bracket 106 is part of the recited snap-fit connection. The jamb-connection
bracket 106 couples with the shouldered headed studs 119, which are welded
to the inner surface of the door jamb 24. Thus, elongated strip 103 couples
to the door jamb 24.
As is evident from the description above of figures 1 and 2 in Loomis,
the elongated strip 103 satisfies the claim construction for the “sill” set forth
by the Examiner. Specifically, the elongated strip 103 is “a horizontal
member that bears an upright or jamb member of a frame.” Accordingly,
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error.
(ii) As for the second portion of the rejection of claim 1 set forth by the
Examiner, in which the elongated strip 103 is one of “several components”
that make up the sill, we note that nothing in claim 1 requires that the recited
“sill” be a single unitary piece rather than an assembly of components.
Indeed, figures 1 and 2 of Loomis depicts screws 68 which attach the
component literally labeled “sill” 50 to the sill support structure 30. The sill
support structure is welded to the elongated strip 103, and the elongated strip
103 is coupled to the jamb 24 via the tab 104 and snap-fit structure 106, 116,
119. Accordingly, the assembly including the elongated strip 103 and sill 50
also satisfies the requirements of the “sill” as recited in claim 1.
Appellants have made the same argument regarding Loomis and the
recited sill for both of independent claims 1 and 16. In light of the
discussion above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 16 and claims 2, 4,
8-14, 18, 19, 21, and 23 depending therefrom as anticipated by Loomis.
Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308

10

The rejection of claims 5-7, 20, and 24 as obvious over Loomis and
Rosenband.
I
Independent claim 5 recites, in part:
wherein the first hoistway entrance member and
the second hoistway entrance member include respective
openings that align when the securing member is in the
second position; and a locking member received at least
partially into the respective openings.

II
The Examiner rejects claims 5-7, 20, and 24 as obvious over Loomis
and Rosenband and cites Rosenband for a “first hoistway entrance member
and the second hoistway entrance member include[ing] respective openings
that align when the securing member is in the second position; and a locking
member received at least partially into the respective openings that prevent
movement of the securing member from the second position.” Ans. 8. As
reasoning for modifying Loomis to include this feature, the Examiner states
the modification would have been to “to further ensure inhibition of relative
movement of the two members.” Id. at 9. As support, the Examiner cites
column 4 of Rosenband, which states:
Once the tabs 28 are secured in place within one of
the openings 30, a fastener such as a bolt 54 can be
inserted through the aligned mating holes 50 and 52 and
secured in place by a nut 56. In this way, additional
securement and locking of the beams 14 and 14a to the
post 12 is obtained.
Rosenband, col. 4, ll. 31–36. We reproduce figures 3 and 4 of Rosenband
(cited by the Examiner) below.
Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308

11

Figure 3 of Rosenband depicts a beam and post before assembly.
Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308

12

Figure 4 of Rosenband is a perspective view showing a bolt 54
received through aligned holes in the beam and post to provide additional
coupling between the beam and post.

III
Appellants state:
The Examiner asserts that Loomis shows an unfinished
framing structure that would not be enclosed by wallboards,
and would therefore be accessible. The Examiner does not point
to any support in Loomis for this proposition. In fact, contrary
to the Examiner's argument, Loomis discloses that certain
damaged or worn pieces can be inserted by following the
disclosed procedure in Loomis (col. 4, 11. 47-50), which
suggests that the frame and other structure around the entrance
opening would be present and, therefore, would limit access to
the bracket having the aligned openings from Rosenband
once the pieces are put in place. Additionally, Rosenband fails
to overcome the deficiencies of Loomis discussed above.
Accordingly, the rejection is improper and must be reversed.
Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308

13

Appeal Br. 5, (emphasis added). Appellants further argue that
inaccessibility of the bracket in Loomis “teaches away” from the proposed
modification. Reply Br. 3. Appellants further argue that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not have an expectation of receiving the
benefit asserted by the Examiner. Id.
IV
We see no error in the Examiner’s position. Rosenband explicitly
teaches that the addition of the alignment holes and bolt 54 provide
additional “securement and locking.” The fact that panels are provided, at
some point in time, to the arrangement described in Loomis does not “teach
away” from adding the features proposed by the Examiner. Indeed,
Appellants have set forth no explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have been dissuaded from making the modification
proposed by the Examiner. Rather, Appellants’ arguments appear to be that
because the snap-fit mechanism described in Loomis would be inaccessible
once completely assembled, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
have found it obvious to have implemented the locking mechanism of
Rosenband in the snap-fit arrangement in Loomis. We are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner has set forth a rationale for the
combination, which rationale was explicitly taught in Rosenband, and we
find the Examiner’s rationale reasonable. Further, Appellants do not
indicate where the relative accessibility of any feature is claimed.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 5-7, 20, and 24 as obvious
over Loomis and Rosenband.

Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308

14

The rejection of claims 22 and 25 as obvious over Loomis and Byfield.
I
Claim 22
Dependent 22 recites:
The assembly as recited in Claim 13, wherein the bracket
includes a first surface and a second surface that is transversely
oriented to the first surface, the first surface and the second
surface include respective receivers or securing members that
engage corresponding securing members or receivers on the
respective sill and jamb.
II
The Examiner acknowledges that Loomis does not disclose a second
surface that includes receivers or securing members that engage
corresponding securing members or receivers, and the Examiner relies on
Byfield for this feature. As reasoning, the Examiner states:
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention to modify
the joint connection between the sill and jamb of Loomis to
have both first and second surfaces include receivers to improve
the ease of assembly. See Page 2, second full paragraph in
Byfield.
Final Action 8.
The portion of Byfield cited by the Examiner, and the paragraph
preceding it, state:
Use of such a device involves a significant amount of
welding to achieve the required column to beam or beam to
beam connections, this being both costly and time consuming.
It is an object of the present invention to provide
apparatus for and a method of connecting columns, beams and
like structural members which avoids, or at least alleviates,
structural and other disadvantages inherent in support members
Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308

15

formed with connection slots as discussed previously, and
which can be assembled and dismantled with relative ease.
Byfield, p. 2, ll. 7–11. Thus, Byfield suggests replacing a welded
connection with Byfield’s invention.
III
Appellants argue
[t]he rejection is improper because it goes beyond the teachings
of the references and therefore would not be a predictable result
of combining the references. A person skilled in the art at the
time of the invention would not have known how (or why) to so
extensively modify the disclosed structures.
Appeal Br. 5. Appellants further note that the cited bracket in Loomis is
connected to at least three other pieces whereas the bracket cited in Byfield
is connected to only two other pieces. Appellants state, “the attachment of at
least three members is beyond what one of ordinary skill in the art would
expect to successfully achieve using the bracket of Byfield,” and the “only
reason to do so, or instruction as to how to do so, is found in the
specification of the present application, and reliance on the present
specification constitutes impermissible hindsight.” Id. at 6. Appellants
further assert that the confined space described in Loomis, contributes to the
unpredictability of the modification proposed by the Examiner. Reply Br.
3–4.
IV
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s position. The
Examiner set forth a rationale for modifying Loomis so as to include a
second surface with receivers or securing members that engage
corresponding securing members or receivers. Indeed, Byfield explains that
Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308

16

replacing the weld from the prior art with the various connections Byfield
discloses is one of its objects and that this replacement provides an apparatus
that can be assembled with relative ease. Byfield, p. 2, ll. 7–11.
Accordingly, we do not agree with Appellants that the only reason to make
the modification proposed by the Examiner is found in the Appellants’
Specification.
We also do not agree with Appellants that the modification to Loomis
proposed by the Examiner is “beyond what one of ordinary skill in the art
would expect to successfully achieve using the bracket of Byfield” or “goes
beyond the teachings of the references.” Whether the modification to
Loomis might require three connections rather than two or Loomis may
provide a more confined space than Byfield provides does not negate the
fact that Byfield specifically suggests replacing a weld, such as the one
disclosed in Loomis, with the connection disclosed in Byfield. Further,
“[c]ombining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA
1973). Appellants have provided no evidence that the relative decrease in
space in Loomis or the addition of a third piece in the assembly would place
the proposed modification beyond what a person of ordinary skill in the art
would expect to successfully achieve. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection
of claim 22 as obvious over Loomis and Byfield.
Claim 25
Dependent claim 25 recites “[t]he assembly as recited in Claim 2,
wherein the receiver has an open periphery.” Although Appellants’ Appeal
Brief and Reply Brief both list claim 25 with the arguments for claim 22,
Appellants’ arguments do not specifically argue the features recited in claim
Appeal 2012-008398
Application 11/719,308

17

25, e.g., the “open periphery” feature for which the Examiner cites Byfield,
and Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s analysis with respect
to claim 25. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 25 as obvious
over Loomis and Byfield.

DECISION
Although we have carefully considered all of Appellants’ arguments,
we are not persuaded that the positions taken by the Examiner with respect
to the anticipation of claims 1, 2, 4, 8-14, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 23 or
obviousness of claims 5-7, 20, 22, 24, and 25 are in error. The Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8-14, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 23 as anticipated by
Loomis, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-7, 20, and 24 as obvious over
Loomis and Rosenband, and the rejection of claims 22 and 25 as obvious
over Loomis and Byfield are 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

tkl