Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 9, 2016

12376170 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/376,170 0910212009
64779 7590 05/11/2016
CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
400 W MAPLE STE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tianming Lin
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.
60469-471PUS1;0004020US 4512
EXAMINER
KRUER, STEFAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/11/2016 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 TIANMING LIN,
JIANWEI ZHANG, FEIQUN HE, and
GUOHUAZHANG
Appeal2014-003967
Application 12/376,170
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1-9, 14, and 16. Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary).
Claims 10-13 are allowed while claim 15 is objected to. Final Act. 1, 5---6;
App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2014-003967
Application 12/376,170
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates generally to an elevator, and
more specifically to a machine roomless elevator." Spec. 1 :4--5. Claims 1
and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal
and is reproduced below:
1. A machine-roomless elevator comprising:
a car within a hoistway;
a counterweight within a space between said car and a wall of
said hoistway, and on which a plurality of counterweight suspension
wheels is arranged;
a traction sheave; and
a plurality of hoist ropes that is arranged to round the traction
sheave,
wherein the hoist ropes are divided into a plurality of
groups corresponding to a number of said counterweight
suspension wheels after corresponding portions of the hoist
ropes round said traction sheave, each group rounding a
corresponding one of the counterweight suspension wheels with
a first one of the groups rounding a first one of the
countef'v'l1eight suspension \'l1heels \'l1ithout rounding a second
one of the counterweight suspension wheels and a second one
of the groups rounding the second one of the counterweight
suspension wheels without rounding the first one of the
counterweight suspension wheels each group being fixed on a
counterweight-side termination after rounding the
corresponding one of said counterweight suspension wheels.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Fischer US 2008/0121468 Al May 29, 2008
Kawasaki JP 2004-189346 A July 8, 2004
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Fischer.
2
Appeal2014-003967
Application 12/376,170
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Kawasaki.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-9 as anticipated by Fischer
Independent claim 1 (and hence dependent claims 2-9) includes the
limitation of a counterweight "on which a plurality of counterweight
suspension wheels is arranged." Claim 1 further recites "a plurality of hoist
ropes are divided into a plurality of groups corresponding to a number of
said counterweight suspension wheels." Hence, the number of rope groups
is dependent on the number of counterweight suspension wheels.
Furthermore, the claim term "corresponding" (i.e., the ropes are divided
"into a plurality of groups corresponding to a number of said counterweight
suspension wheels") is understood to be synonymous with "equivalent."1
This is consistent with Appellants' Specification and arguments made.
Spec. 2:13-15, 3:1--4, 5:31to6:14; App. Br. 4.
The Examiner correlates Fischer's items 12.1 and 12.2 to the claimed
"counterweight suspension wheels" stating "each having three wheels, per."
Final Act. 3 (referencing Fischer Fig. 2B and i-f 42). The Examiner also
correlates Fischer item 5 6 as the claimed "plurality of hoist ropes." Final
Act. 3; see also Fischer i-f 14. The Examiner then finds that hoist ropes 56
"are divided into a plurality of groups (3, each comprising one hoist rope)
corresponding to the number of said counterweight suspension wheels (12.2,
1 "Correspond" is defined as "to be equivalent." WEBSTER'S NEW
COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 253 (1979). See also Merriam-Webster.com,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correspond (last visited May 3,
2016).
3
Appeal2014-003967
Application 12/376,170
having three wheels)." Final Act. 3. The Examiner acknowledges Fischer's
other counterweight wheel unit 12.1 stating that the rope groups also round
"a corresponding one of the other of the counterweight suspension wheels."
Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner does not include counterweight wheels
12.1 in the tally of counterweight wheels relied on in rejecting claim 1. 2
Final Act. 3.
Appellants contend that Fischer "does not support the Examiner's
allegation that the number of 'groups' corresponds to the number of
counterweight suspension wheels." App. Br. 4. This is because
If the Examiner is going to interpret the counterweight roller
unit 12.2 as three separate counterweight suspension wheels,
then the Examiner must reach the conclusion that there are six
counterweight suspension wheels because the counterweight
roller unit 12.1 also has three portions.
App. Br. 4. In other words, "the Examiner's approach results in six -- not
three -- counterweight suspension wheels." App. Br. 4. Appellants
summarize, "[t]herefore, the number (three) of the Examiner's alleged
groups does not correspond to the number (six) of counterweight suspension
wheels." App. Br. 4. Accordingly, as per Appellants, "there is no prima
facie case of anticipation." App. Br. 4.
Claim 1 is specific in reciting a counterweight having "a plurality of
counterweight suspension wheels" arranged thereon. This claim also recites
that the hoist ropes are divided into groups "corresponding to a number of
2 The Examiner states, "there is nothing recited in the claim that precludes
Examiner's reasonable interpretation of said plurality as being comprised by
the 'counterweight roller unit 12.2' alone." Ans. 5. This disregard of
wheels 12.1 appears to conflict with the Examiner's earlier reliance on
wheels 12.1, which were cited for disclosing counterweight wheels. Final
Act. 3.
4
Appeal2014-003967
Application 12/376,170
said counterweight suspension wheels." As indicated supra, this
"corresponding to a number" recitation is not understood to be different
from the actual quantity (or plurality) of counterweight wheels. Stated
another way, there is no indication that claim 1 is referring to a different
number of counterweight suspension wheels than the stated "plurality of
counterweight suspension wheels."
Fischer discloses six counterweight suspension wheels. Fischer i-fi-128,
30, 42 and Figs. 2B, 5; Final Act. 3. Nevertheless, the Examiner addresses
only half as many, i.e., only those associated with item 12.2 (while
acknowledging that the ropes also round the other wheel set 12.1 ). Final
Act. 3--4, Ans. 5. The Examiner provides no reason or rationale as to why
this other wheel set (i.e., 12.1) is not to be among the recited "plurality of
counterweight suspension wheels." Accordingly, we are persuaded by
Appellants' contentions stated supra and we agree with Appellants, "there is
no primafacie case of anticipation." App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 1. Based on the
record presented, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 as
anticipated by Fischer.
Also, while not germane to our analysis above, Appellants contend,
"[t]he Fischer reference clearly states that a group has to include two or
more belts in order to be a group of belts." App. Br. 3 (referencing Fischer
i127); see also Reply Br. 2. Accordingly, Appellants argue that "group" has
to be more than one. App. Br. 3--4, Reply Br. 2. However, it is not
Fischer's definition of what constitutes a "group" that is of importance, but
instead, it is the meaning of "group" as this term would be understood by
one skilled in the art upon reading Appellants' Specification that controls.
5
Appeal2014-003967
Application 12/376,170
Accordingly, Appellants' argument premised upon that which Fischer
defines as a "group" is not persuasive of Examiner error.
The rejection of claims 14 and 16 as anticipated by Kawasaki
Independent claim 14 (and hence dependent claim 16) includes the
limitation of "a plurality of counterweight suspension wheels" and,
separately, "a plurality of hoist members" that wrap around the
counterweight suspension wheels. This claim also recites first and second
hoist member groups that follow first and second paths around the
counterweight wheels, with the second path being a "different path" from
the first path.
According to Appellants, in Kawasaki, "[ e Jach of the ropes follow the
same path" and that, "the same pattern or path is followed by every other
belt."3 App. Br. 5---6. The Examiner finds that in Kawasaki, the belts follow
parallel paths. Final Act. 5 ("the second path lies adjacently parallel of said
first path"). Furthermore; "each of the ropes takes a different path - one
does not (collinearly) follow the other." Ans. 8.
Appellants do not use the term "different" in their Specification,
however, it is defined as "not the same as."4 Based on this definition,
Appellants are not persuasive that the paths illustrated in Kawasaki fail to be
"different." App. Br. 5-6. Appellants do not explain how a path that is
parallel to another, is not, nevertheless, a "different" path. There is no
3 "Given that every lifting rope 8 wraps around the sheaves in the elevator
system of the Kawasaki reference in the very same way as every other lifting
rope 8, they all follow the same path." App. Br. 6.
4 WEBSTER'S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 315 (1979). See also
Merriam-Webster.com, http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/different (last visited May 3, 2016).
6
Appeal2014-003967
Application 12/376,170
indication in Kawasaki that one path can be co-mingled with another.
Instead, the various paths in Kawasaki are maintained separately from each
other with no overlapping. Hence, Appellants are not persuasive that
Kawasaki's ropes fail to follow "different" paths as stated by the Examiner.
Final Act. 5; Ans. 8.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 14 and 16.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 as anticipated by Fischer is
reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 14 and 16 as anticipated by
Kawasaki is affirmed.
AFFIRivIED-Il...J-P ART
7