Ex parte KOURA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 21, 1998

08070863 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 21, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 3, 1993. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KUNIKAZU KOURA
____________
Appeal No. 95-3141
Application No. 08/070,8631
____________
HEARD: October 14, 1998
____________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and MARTIN, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 2, 3 and 5, all of the claims remaining in the
application.
Appeal No. 95-3141
Application No. 08/070,863
2
The invention relates to an elevator car position
detector and is illustrated by reference to representative
independent claim 2, reproduced as follows:
2. An elevator car position detecting apparatus for
detecting the position of an elevator car along an elevator
shaft, said elevator car position detecting apparatus
comprising:
at least first and second operating devices provided on a
side wall of the elevator shaft, each operating device
provided at an operation position defined along the elevator
shaft, each of said at least first and second operating
devices including a plurality of operating elements disposed
in a row in a direction perpendicular to the direction of
travel of the elevator car in such positions that the
operation positions can be encoded by using two or more ON/OFF
signals, the plurality of operating elements of said first
operating device being arranged such that at least one of the
operating elements is misaligned with at least one of the
operating elements of said second operating device along the
direction of travel of the elevator car; and
a detecting device provided on said elevator car, said
detecting device including a plurality of detecting elements
provided corresponding to said operating elements so that,
when said elevator car is at any one of said operation
positions, some of said detecting elements are operated by the
corresponding operating elements and thereby generate a signal
coding the position of said elevator car wherein the operating
elements of said operating devices are shielding plates, and
wherein each of said detecting elements of said detecting
device comprises a transmitter portion and a receiver portion
which can be shielded from each other by one of the shielding
plates.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Appeal No. 95-3141
Application No. 08/070,863
3
Aron 3,983,961 Oct. 5,
1976
Caputo et al. (Caputo) 4,433,756 Feb. 28, 1984
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(b) as
anticipated by Aron. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
102(b) as anticipated by Caputo.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We will not sustain any of the rejections under 35 U.S.C.
102(b) as, in our view, the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of anticipation.
Turning first to the rejection of claims 2 and 3, the
examiner contends that Aron anticipates the claimed subject
matter. The examiner points to two operating devices, P1 and
P2, in Aron and that these devices are arranged in a row up
the hoistway and such that one of them is misaligned with the
other.
Appeal No. 95-3141
Application No. 08/070,863
4
Reference to Aron discloses that the plate sections P1
and P2 are employed to facilitate precise leveling of the
elevator car at a particular floor. In one embodiment, this
is achieved by the shaping of the individual plate sections
(the amount of truncation of their apexes) and, in another
embodiment, this is achieved by the width of the shoulders S
of the plates. See column 4, lines 18-25 of Aron.
We find nothing in Aron suggestive of the encoding and/or
position detection described and required by instant claims 2
and 3. More specifically, the claims require first and second
operating devices each comprising a plurality of operating
elements disposed in a row in a direction perpendicular to the
direction of travel of the elevator car “in such positions
that the operation positions can be encoded by using two or
more ON/OFF signals.” The plurality of operating elements of
the first operating device are misaligned with the plurality
of operating elements of the second operating device along the
direction of travel of the elevator car so that when the
elevator car is at any one of the operating positions,
detecting elements are operated by corresponding operating
Appeal No. 95-3141
Application No. 08/070,863
5
elements at that position in order to generate a signal coding
the position of the elevator car. We find nothing in Aron
suggestive of such claimed features.
While the examiner’s response [answer-page 4] is that
there is nothing in the claims relative to the encoding of
operational positions and, as such, it is irrelevant that the
plates of Aron are in the same position for each floor,
instant claims 2 and 3 certainly do require that “the
operation positions can be encoded by using two or more ON/OFF
signals” and then further recite how the detection elements
generate a signal coding the position of the elevator car
based on the misalignment of the operating elements of the
first and second operating devices. Clearly, then, the
examiner’s failure to take into account the misalignment and
encoding features of the instant claimed invention because of
the examiner’s erroneous finding that such features formed no
part of the instant claimed invention constitutes grounds for
reversal for a lack of a prima facie case of anticipation.
Appeal No. 95-3141
Application No. 08/070,863
6
Further, for the reasons set forth by appellant [reply
brief-pages 2-3], we find that the examiner’s argument
regarding the generation of “on” and “off” signals by Aron to
be unpersuasive since even if Aron somehow could be construed
to disclose such signals, and we do not contend that Aron can
be so construed, there is clearly no detection circuitry in
Aron to detect any such “on” and “off” signals.
Turning now to the rejection of claim 5 as anticipated by
Caputo, we also will not sustain this rejection. Looking at
Figure 2 of Caputo, it is the examiner’s contention that
Caputo teaches two operating elements (tracks 76 and 78)
wherein the holes in the two tracks are misaligned in order to
detect the position of an elevator car via detection means
100, 102, 92 and 94. It is the examiner’s position that the
space between the holes is considered to be the claimed
“optical shielding plates.”
Appellant argues that Caputo does not suggest the use of
optical shielding plates disposed in a row perpendicular to
the direction of travel of the elevator car for encoding the
Appeal No. 95-3141
Application No. 08/070,863
7
position of the car. Appellant further argues that the
instant optical shielding plates are more reliable than
devices such as polymeric film, as shown in Caputo, and that
the positioning of the plates horizontally along operating
device 62a of the instant disclosure provides position
detection without movement of the elevator car or the use of a
plurality of vertically spaced LEDs.
With regard to the reliability argument, there is nothing
in the claims which would preclude the use of polymeric film
while, with regard to the argument that the invention provides
position detection without movement of the car or the use of
LEDs, there is also nothing in the claims precluding detection
by movement of the car or with the use of LEDs. Accordingly,
these arguments are irrelevant with regard to the claimed
subject matter and, therefore, unpersuasive.
However, claim 5 requires that each of the first and
second operating devices (defined by the examiner as tracks 76
and 78 of Caputo) have a plurality of operating elements (the
holes in each track) disposed in a row (the vertical nature of
Appeal No. 95-3141
Application No. 08/070,863
8
the holes in each track can be considered a “row”) and that
the row be “in a direction perpendicular to the direction of
travel of the elevator car.” Clearly, the “operating
elements” in Caputo are disposed in a row in a direction which
is parallel to, or in the same direction as, the direction of
travel of the elevator car. Therefore, the structure taught
by Caputo does not anticipate the claimed invention.
We have not sustained either the rejection of claims 2
and 3 or the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is reversed.
Appeal No. 95-3141
Application No. 08/070,863
9
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOHN C. MARTIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK/jlb
Appeal No. 95-3141
Application No. 08/070,863
10
Leydig, Voit & Mayer
700 13th St, NW, Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20005
JoAnne
Appeal No. 95-3141
Application No. 08/070,863
APJ KRASS
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ MARTIN
REVERSED
Prepared: July 12, 1999
HEARD - October 14, 1998
3 MEMBER CONFERENCE