Ex Parte Ketonen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2017

13175095 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/175,095 07/01/2011 Ari KETONEN 1381-0459PUS1 1971
127226 7590 02/15/2017
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
P.O. Box 747
Falls Church, VA 22040-0747
EXAMINER
KRUER, STEFAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2017 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):
mailroom @ bskb. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARI KETONEN, JARMO AHONIEMI, and
MARKO MALIN
Appeal 2015-004331
Application 13/175,095
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and BRENT M. DOUGAL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ari Ketonen et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the
rejection of claims 1—4, 6—12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nakamura (JP 2000-191250 A, pub. July 11, 2000) and
Deimann (DE 3406633 Al, pub. Sept. 20, 1984)1 and claim 14 as
unpatentable over Nakamura, Deimann, and Lamb (US 5,202,539, iss. Apr.
13, 1993). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 In the Answer, the Examiner enters a new ground of rejection for claims 11
and 12 as unpatentable over Nakamura and Deimann. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2015-004331
Application 13/175,095
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An elevator provided with a locking apparatus to prevent
movement of an elevator car, the elevator comprising at least
a hoisting machine provided with a traction sheave, a frame
and at least one brake, the locking apparatus comprising a
holding device configured to limit rotational movement of the
traction sheave, wherein the holding device pivots about an
axis that is perpendicular to a rotational axis of the traction
sheave to meet a holding detent on the traction sheave.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1—4, 6, 8, 10, 15, and 16
Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of
claims 2—4, 8, 10, 15, and 16. See Appeal Br. 13. Rather, Appellants allege
that these claims are “allowable based on their respective dependence from
independent claims 1 and 6.” Id. Accordingly, claims 2-4, 8, 10, 15, and 16
stand or fall with claims 1 and 6.
The rejection of independent claims 1 and 6 relies upon the
Examiner’s reasoning that, although neither Nakamura nor Deimann
disclose a holding device arrange to pivot about an axis that is perpendicular
to a rotation axis of the traction sheave, “such a modification to Nakamura
would have been obvious since the alternative arrangement would not affect
the operation of the device and as such would have been no more than an
obvious choice of design that does not yield any unexpected results.” Final
Act. 4 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further reasons that it would have
been obvious
to modify the locking apparatus of Nakamura et al such that the
holding device is arranged to pivot about an axis that is
2
Appeal 2015-004331
Application 13/175,095
perpendicular to a rotational axis of the traction sheave, when
moving into its locking position against the holding detent, as an
alternative arrangement to meet installation-specific criteria for
spatial concerns, e.g. more space along an axial (longitudinal)
direction than a radial direction of the hoisting machine.
Id. at 4—5 (emphasis added).
Appellants contend that “the proposed modification would render the
arrangement of Nakamura/Dei mann being modified unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose, and cannot possibly be a predictable variation/obvious
design choice as the Examiner alleged.” Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3^4. In
support of these contentions, Appellants argue that
By making the alleged holding device 25 of Nakamura pivot
about an axis that is perpendicular to the rotational axis 11 of the
traction sheave 12, the protrusion 24 of the alleged holding
device 25 would not be able to be inserted into the space between
the gear teeth 17 from the direction perpendicular to the
rotational axis 11 of the traction sheave 12 (and even if it can be,
assuming arguendo, it cannot effectively stop the rotation of the
traction sheave 12), and therefore cannot serve to stop the
rotation of the traction sheave 12.
Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis omitted).
Responding to this argument, the Examiner explains that
the proposed alternative arrangement does not “destroy[“] the
reference of Nakamura et al as modified by Deimann, in that the
holding device continues to act against a holding detent that is
mounted on the traction sheave. It is simply an alternative
arrangement to accommodate spatial constraints, wherein said
alternative arrangement would not prohibit the holding device
[from] engaging the holding detent as argued by applicant. The
pivotable holding device (25) of Nakamura et al would still be able
to engage a detent (17) of their “double purpose brake disk” (18)
if the holding device (25) and its actuator (21 - 22), which together
comprise the locking apparatus (21 - 26), were arranged to enable
the holding device (25) to pivot [about an axis perpendicular of a
rotational axis] of the traction sheave (12).”
3
Appeal 2015-004331
Application 13/175,095
Non-Final Act. 7.2
In view of the Examiner’s explanation, Appellants argue that “the
proposed alternative arrangement works much less effectively] than the
original design of Nakamura or Deimann.” Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 5
(emphasis omitted). Based on this argument, Appellants conclude that the
proposed modification “is not just a predictable variation/obvious design
choice in view of the arrangement of Nakamura and Deimann as the
Examiner alleged.” Id. at 10.
As noted by the Examiner (see Ans. 6), Appellants’ argument that the
proposed modification would be “less effective” amounts to an admission,
that the proposed modification is effective and thus, would not render the
proposed device unsuitable for its intended purpose. Accordingly,
Appellants’ argument is unconvincing. Further, Appellants do not explain
why the Examiner’s reasoning for the proposed modification (i.e., to allow
for installation specific space constraints as discussed supra) is flawed.
Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
independent claims 1 and 6, and dependent claims 2—4, 8, 10, 15, and 16,
which fall therewith.
Claim 7 and 19
Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner in the outstanding Office
Action failed to indicate where and how Nakamura teaches that the base of
the alleged locking apparatus is fixed to the frame of the alleged hoisting
machine 10.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellants further argue that “as shown in
FIG. 3 of Nakamura, the base of the alleged locking apparatus appears to be
2 The Final Action refers to this argument set forth in the Non-Final Action
mailed October 23, 2013. Final Act. 5.
4
Appeal 2015-004331
Application 13/175,095
located on the base plate 19 and is spaced apart from the alleged hoisting
machine 10. Therefore, Nakamura fails to teach the subject matter of claim
7.” Id.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner determines that “the
locking device (21 - 26) inherently has a base and the hoisting machine
inherently has a frame (See Fig.’s 2—3).” Ans. 7—8. The Examiner further
notes that “what precisely defines a ‘frame’ is not defined by the claim and
Nakamura certainly depicts a support, thereby a ‘frame’, for his hoisting
machine (10) in addition to his base plate (19), which base plate can be
interpreted as a ‘frame’ as well.” Id.
The Examiner’s determinations are not responsive to the argument
raised by Appellants. Appellants do not contest the existence of a base and
frame in Nakamura. Rather, as discussed supra, Appellants argue these
features are not arranged as required by claim 7. The Examiner does not
explain how these limitations are met by Nakamura and it is not readily
apparent that they are met. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is
persuasive.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 7. Claim
19 depends from claim 7. Accordingly, we likewise do not sustain the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 19.
Claims 9 and 20
Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner in the outstanding Office
Action failed to indicate where and how Nakamura teaches that the alleged
holding device 25 is fixed to the base of the alleged locking apparatus on the
frame of the alleged hoisting machine 10 by means of a hinge.” Appeal Br.
12.
5
Appeal 2015-004331
Application 13/175,095
Responding to this argument, the Examiner finds that “Nakamura
discloses a hinge (at 23), which hinge pivotally fixes the holding device (25)
to the base (of the locking apparatus) on the frame.” Ans. 8. However, as
discussed supra, and noted again by Appellants “the base of the alleged
locking apparatus appears to be located on the base plate 19 and is spaced
apart from the alleged hoisting machine 10. Therefore, Nakamura fails to
teach the subject matter of claims 9 . . . and 20.” Appeal Br. 12. Again, the
Examiner does not address the argument raised by Appellants.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 9 and 20.
Claim 11
Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner in the outstanding Office
Action failed to indicate where and how Nakamura teaches that the base of
the alleged locking apparatus comprises any groove, into which the alleged
holding device 25 is arranged to turn in a locking phase of the traction
sheave. Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). Appellants further argue that “as
shown in FIG. 3 of Nakamura, the base of the alleged locking apparatus does
not seem to have any groove.” Id.
Responding to this argument, the Examiner refers to an Office Action
mailed May 9, 2013, which indicates that Deimann discloses the groove.
See Ans. 8. However, this is prior Office Action does not set forth the
current rejection of claim 11. Rather, as indicated on page 2 of the Answer,
Nakamura is relied upon to meet the groove limitation in claim 11. Thus,
the Examiner does not respond to the argument raised by Appellants.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 11.
6
Appeal 2015-004331
Application 13/175,095
Claim 12
Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner in the outstanding Office
Action failed to indicate where and how Nakamura teaches that the base of
the alleged locking apparatus comprises any groove.” Appeal Br. 13
(emphasis omitted). The Examiner’s response is the same as for claim 11
discussed supra. Again, the response does not address Appellants’
argument.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 12.
Rejection II
Noting that “[dependent claim 14 depends from independent claim 6”
Appellants argue that claim 13 “is therefore allowable based on its
dependence from independent claim 6, which is believed to be allowable.”
Appeal Br. 14. As we find no deficiencies in the rejection of claim 6, as
discussed supra, Appellants’ argument is unconvincing.
We sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 14.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4, 6, 8, 10, and 14—16 are
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,9, 11, 12, 19, and 20 is
REVERSED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7