Ex Parte Kulak et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 24, 2009

10574653 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 24, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RICHARD KULAK and MICHAEL TRACEY
____________

Appeal 2009-010856
Application 10/574,653
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: November 25, 2009
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-010856
Application 10/574,653

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Richard Kulak et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-14, and 16-22.
Claims 2, 4, 11, and 15 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a roller guide system for an elevator
car assembly 20. Spec. 1, l. 7 and fig. 1. The system includes a plurality of
rollers 32 that roll along the surfaces of guide rails 28, a motion detector 54
for determining vibrations or lateral movement of the elevator car assembly
20, a damper 40, an electromagnet 52, and a controller 50. Spec. 3, ll. 3-4,
15-16, and 29; Spec. 4, ll. 1 and 6; and fig. 3. The damper 40 includes a
fluid that has a variable viscosity, i.e., a magneto-rheological fluid. Spec. 3,
ll. 25-27. During operation, motion information is provided by the motion
detector 54 to the controller 50 which controls the magnetic field generated
by electromagnet 52 so as to selectively vary the viscosity of the fluid in
damper 40, and hence, to control the stiffness of the damper 40. Spec. 4, ll.
14-18.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and reads as
follows:
1. A roller guide device for use in an elevator system, comprising:

a base;

at least one roller supported by the base such that the roller is
rotatable about a roller axis and moveable relative to the base in
at least one direction perpendicular to the roller axis;
Appeal 2009-010856
Application 10/574,653

3

a damper that has a selectively variable stiffness and dampens
the relative movement of the roller, the damper comprising a
fluid having a selectively variable viscosity for varying the
stiffness of the damper; and

a controller that automatically increases the stiffness of the
damper when an associated elevator car is stationary at a
landing and decreases the stiffness of the damper when the
associated elevator car is moving.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Fujita US 5,289,902 Mar. 1, 1994
Hollowell US 5,368,132 Nov. 29, 1994

Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-
10, 12-14, and 16-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujita
and Hollowell.

THE ISSUE
The Examiner found that Fujita discloses all the features of
independent claims 1, 10, and 14 with the exception of a controller that
automatically increases the stiffness of the damper when the elevator car is
stationary at a landing. Ans. 3-5. The Examiner further found that
Hollowell discloses a controller 24 that automatically increases the stiffness
of the damper 59 when an associated elevator car 13 is at a landing and
decreases the stiffness of the damper when the elevator car is moving. Ans.
4. The Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
Appeal 2009-010856
Application 10/574,653

4
ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference of Fujita with the teaching of
Hollowell et al for ergonomics and marketability.” Id.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has misconstrued the teachings of
Hollowell. App. Br. 4. Specifically, Appellants argue that in contrast to the
Examiner’s interpretation, Hollowell does not teach a controller that
automatically increases the stiffness of a passive damper when an associated
elevator car is at a landing. App. Br. 4 and 5. Rather, instead of changing
the stiffness of a passive damper, Appellants argue that Hollowell discloses
using electromagnetic actuators to generate a force that moves the car
platform toward the rails to “’lock the cab to a landing.’” App. Br. 5. See
also Reply Br. 1. Since the mode of operation of Fujita’s system is so
different from Hollowell’s system, Appellants further argue that the
Examiner’s proposed combination is not only unworkable, but it would
change the mode of operation of Fujita’s system because it would replace
the passive damper of Fujita with the active force generator of Hollowell.
App. Br. 6.
In response, the Examiner acknowledges that, “Hollowell is not cited
for teaching a device that can necessarily operate the device of Fujita,” but
rather for teaching the concept of:
[A]utomatically increasing a resistance to lateral
motion upon reaching a landing in anticipation of
the forces/vibrations generated by
disembarking/embarking passengers, wherein said
concept can be applied to the controller of Fujita
that continuously monitors and counteracts the
detected vibrations incurred upon the elevator car -
irrespective of the elevator car being stationary or
in motion.

Appeal 2009-010856
Application 10/574,653

5
Ans. 8.
Finally, Appellants counter that:
It is not permissible to strain out some abstract
"concept" from a reference and ignore how the
reference actually teaches implementing that
"concept" for purposes of attempting to
manufacture a prima facie case of obviousness.
Such an analysis is only based on hindsight
reasoning because the reference does not provide
any basis for that abstraction absent having the
benefit of Appellant's disclosure and claims in the
first instance.
Reply Br. 2-3.
Accordingly, the issue presented for our consideration in the instant
appeal is as follows:
Have Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred in determining
that the combined teachings of Fujita and Hollowell would have prompted a
person of ordinary skill in the art to instruct the controller of Fujita to
automatically increase the stiffness of the dampers when an associated
elevator car is at a landing?

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following enumerated findings of facts (FF) are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
Appeal 2009-010856
Application 10/574,653

6
1. Fujita discloses a system for controlling the vibrations of an
elevator cage 5. Fujita, col. 1, ll. 8-10.
2. Fujita’s system includes roller 10 that rolls along guide rail 3, a
vibration sensor 24 for detecting the vibrations from cage 5, a
damper unit 20 filled with magnetic fluid, an electromagnetic
coil 23, and a control circuit 25. Fujita, col. 3, l. 59 through col.
4, l. 12 and figs. 2 and 3.
3. During operation, the frequency of vibrations from cage 5 are
detected by the vibration sensor 24 and converted to an
electrical signal that is transmitted to the control circuit 25
where it is compared to a predetermined value. Fujita, col. 4, ll.
23-30.
4. When the electric signal is smaller than the predetermined
value, i.e., low frequency vibration, the control circuit 25
increases the current flowing to the electromagnetic coil 23 to
increase the viscosity of the magnetic fluid 22 (the viscous
damping coefficient also increases). Fujita, col. 4, ll. 35-39 and
43-47 and fig. 4.
5. When the electric signal is larger than the predetermined value,
i.e., high frequency vibration, the control circuit 25 decreases
the current flowing to the electromagnetic coil 23 to decrease
the viscosity of the magnetic fluid 22 (the viscous damping
coefficient also decreases). Fujita, col. 4, ll. 39-43 and 48-54
and fig. 4.
6. The Examiner determined that boarding and deboarding
passengers from a stationary elevator car generates low
Appeal 2009-010856
Application 10/574,653

7
frequency, high amplitude vibrations. The Examiner further
determined that an elevator car in motion (traveling along guide
rails) generates high frequency, low amplitude vibrations. Ans.
7. Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s findings.
7. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
an increase in the viscosity of Fujita’s magnetic fluid
corresponds to an increase in stiffness of the damper 20,
whereas a decrease in the viscosity corresponds to a decrease in
stiffness of the damper 20.
8. Hollowell discloses a damping system using electromagnetic
actuators to reduce lateral motion of an elevator cab when
boarding and deboarding passengers. Hollowell, col. 2, ll. 48-
51.
9. When the elevator cab of Hollowell is at rest, the cab is locked
to a landing to keep it from moving as passengers alight and
depart, and to reduce sideways jostling from door action.
Hollowell, col. 3, ll. 9-14.
10. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
appreciated that all elevator cabs (cars) incur vibrations when
boarding and deboarding passengers.
11. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized
that when the elevator cab of Hollowell is locked to the landing,
the damping system is characterized by a high degree of
stiffness.

Appeal 2009-010856
Application 10/574,653

8
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
It is elementary that to support an obviousness rejection all words in a
claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against
the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970).
"Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.'" KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3)
the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See
also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407 ("While the sequence of these questions might be
reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the
inquiry that controls.")

OPINION
Appellants argue the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) of claims 1, 3,
5-10, 12-14, and 16-22 together as a group. App. Br. 4. Therefore, in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2009), we have selected claim 1
as the representative claim to decide the appeal, with claims 3, 5-10, 12-14,
and 16-22 standing or falling with claim 1.
Appeal 2009-010856
Application 10/574,653

9
Although we appreciate Appellants’ argument that the Examiner’s
proposed combination is unworkable because it would replace the passive
damper of Fujita with the active force generator of Hollowell, we note that
obviousness does not require that all of the features of the secondary
reference be bodily incorporated into the primary reference. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550
(Fed. Cir. 1983)(“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be
physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”).
Moreover, the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one
prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent
judgment. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
In this case, Fujita discloses a system for controlling the vibrations of
an elevator cage including a damper unit having a variable viscosity, a
vibration sensor, and a control circuit. FF 1, 2. The vibration sensor detects
the vibration of the cage, converts the vibration into an electrical signal, and
transmits the signal to the control circuit where the signal is compared to a
predetermined value. FF 3. When the electric signal is smaller than the
predetermined value, i.e., a low frequency vibration, the control circuit
increases the viscosity of the damping unit, hence increases the stiffness of
the damper. FF 4, 7. On the other hand, when the electric signal is larger
than the predetermined value, i.e., a high frequency vibration, the control
circuit decreases the viscosity of the damping unit, hence decreases the
stiffness of the damper. FF 5, 7. Furthermore, we find that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that boarding and
deboarding passengers from a stationary elevator car generates low
Appeal 2009-010856
Application 10/574,653

10
frequency, high amplitude vibrations, whereas an elevator car in motion
(traveling along guide rails) generates high frequency, low amplitude
vibrations. FF 6. Hence, we agree with the Examiner that the system of
Fujita continuously monitors and responds to the detected vibrations
incurred by an elevator car by controlling the stiffness of the damper unit,
regardless if the elevator is stationary or in motion. Ans. 8.
Further, we find that Hollowell discloses the desirability of reducing
lateral motion of an elevator cab when boarding and deboarding passengers.
FF 8. Specifically, Hollowell discloses a damping system in which
electromagnetic actuators are used to lock the elevator cab to the landing to
keep it from moving as passengers alight and depart and to reduce sideways
jostling from door action. FF 8, 9. A person of ordinary skill in the art
would have readily appreciated that all elevator cabs (cars) incur vibrations
when boarding and deboarding passengers, including the elevator car of
Fujita. FF 10. Furthermore, the same person of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that when the elevator cab of Hollowell is locked to
the landing, its damping system is characterized by a high degree of
stiffness. FF 11.
Accordingly, in view of Hollowell’s teaching of increasing the
stiffness of the damping system to resist lateral motion caused by boarding
and deboarding passengers, we find that it would have been well within the
level of ordinary skill in the art to command the controller of Fujita to
increase the viscosity of damper 20, hence to increase its stiffness, when the
elevator car is at a landing, because it represents the “mere application of a
known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement.” KSR,
Appeal 2009-010856
Application 10/574,653

11
550 U.S. at 417. After all, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
Lastly, with respect to Appellants’ argument that the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness is based on hindsight (Reply Br. 2 and 3), we
note that the Examiner has set forth a reasonable rationale underlying the
conclusion of obviousness. The Examiner has specifically noted that
Hollowell’s system affords “greater stability when passengers are
embarking/disembarking [from] the elevator car.” Ans. 4. As such, the
Examiner reasons that, “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify the reference of Fujita with the teaching of
Hollowell et al for ergonomics and marketability.” Id. Therefore, we
determine that the Examiner did not rely on impermissible hindsight, as
Appellants urge, but rather relied on the knowledge of those skilled in the art
at the time of the invention.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Fujita and Hollowell. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 1, and claims 3, 5-10, 12-14, and 16-22, standing or falling with claim
1, is sustained.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Fujita and Hollowell would have
prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to instruct the controller of
Appeal 2009-010856
Application 10/574,653

12
Fujita to automatically increase the stiffness of the dampers 20 when an
associated elevator car is at a landing.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-14, and 16-22
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED

mls

CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS
400 W MAPLE STE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009