Ex Parte Miller et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201612090379 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/090,379 04/16/2008 Robin Mihekun Miller 60469-!97PUS1;0000051-W0 2555 64779 7590 01/04/2017 CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 400 W MAPLE STE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3654 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): 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 ROBIN MIHEKUN MILLER, RICHARD N. FARGO, BORIS TRAKTOVENKO, and JAMES LEO HUBBARD Appeal 2015-002052 Application 12/090,379 Technology Center 3600 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1, 3—13, 15— 20, and 23—27.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Otis Elevator Co., which is identified as a part of United Technologies Corp. App. Br. 1. 2 Claims 21, 22, and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Final Act. 1,9. Appeal 2015-002052 Application 12/090,379 Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, reproduced below, exemplifies the claimed subject matter. 1. A load bearing assembly for use in an elevator system, comprising: a plurality of flat belts that are configured to support a weight of an associated car and counterweight, the plurality of flat belts being configured to be moved by a drive sheave to cause movement of the associated car and counterweight, at least one of the flat belts having a load carrying capacity that is different than a load carrying capacity of at least one other of the flat belts. Rejections3 1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ishii (EP 1,325,881 Al, published July 9, 2003) and Baranda et al. (US 6,364,061 B2, issued Apr. 2, 2002) (hereinafter, “Baranda ’061”). Final Act. 2—6.4 2. Claims 6, 17, 18, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ishii, Baranda ’061, and Baranda et al. (WO 01/14630 Al, published March 1, 2001) (hereinafter, “Baranda ’630”). Final Act. 6—7. 3 The Final Action indicates claims 5,11, and 12 are included in the rejected claims (Final Act. 1), but we do not see these claims listed with the individual rejections. As these dependent claims are not argued separately by Appellants, we presume Appellants understand the basis for the rejection, and sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, as discussed below. 4 Although claim 6 is listed in the summary of this rejection (Final Act. 2), the substantive rejection of claim 6 is provided in connection with the following rejection. 2 Appeal 2015-002052 Application 12/090,379 3. Claims 9, 10, 19, 20, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ishii, Baranda ’061, Adifon et al. (US 6,397,974 Bl, issued June 4, 2002), and Kondou (US 5,149,922, issued Sept. 22, 1992). Final Act. 7—9. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 3—6; Reply Br. 1 4). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the Answer. We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 4, 6—8, 13, 15, 16, 23, and 24 as a group. See App. Br. 3—6. We select claim 1 as representative of the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 23, and 24. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants argue the Ishii reference does not indicate that the steel rope 13 will have a different load carrying capacity than the synthetic ropes 12, and, therefore, does not teach “at least one of the flat belts having a load carrying capacity that is different than a load carrying capacity of at least one other of the flat belts,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 3. Appellants agree with the Examiner that Ishii teaches steel rope 13 is capable of supporting the car and counterweight, but argue the Examiner has overlooked that each of the synthetic ropes 12 are also capable of suspending the car and counterweight on their own. Id. at 4. Appellants find support for this argument in Ishii’s teaching of a safety factor of 10, and calculate that each of four ropes will have a load carrying capacity that is 2.5 3 Appeal 2015-002052 Application 12/090,379 times the rated load of the elevator system and that each of five ropes will have a load carrying capacity that is 2 times the rated load. Id. at 4—5. Appellants thus argue that Ishii’s statement that steel rope 13 is capable of supporting the car and counterweight does not indicate it has a different load carrying capacity, and that there is no other overt statement to that effect in Ishii. Id. at 5—6. Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner relies on additional portions of Ishii to support the finding that Ishii teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that steel rope 13 has a different load carrying capacity than synthetic ropes 12. In particular, the Examiner finds Ishii teaches “the diameter d2 of the steel rope 13 is equal to or less than the diameter dl of the synthetic fiber ropes 12” (Ishii 121), but the ropes are made of different materials. Ans. 4. We agree with the Examiner that this passage supports the finding that Ishii teaches the disputed limitation, as it would have at least suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that it would be unlikely for a steel rope to have the same load carrying capacity as the synthetic rope of the same diameter. Appellants are correct that “[different materials . . . are not the same thing as different strength or load carrying capacities” (Reply Br. 2), but a reference may be relied on for the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be expected to draw from its teachings. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (noting that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom”). 4 Appeal 2015-002052 Application 12/090,379 We also agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ calculation of the safety factor (see App. Br. 4—5) is unsupported, at least for one of the embodiments of Ishii. Ans. 5. Paragraphs 23—25 of Ishii relate to “Embodiment 2,” in which “[t]he number of synthetic fiber ropes 12 is set such that the strength required of the main rope group 32 from a design perspective is achieved by the synthetic fiber ropes 12 alone” (Ishii 123). Thus, Appellants are incorrect that Ishii teaches the same factor of safety “for each of the ropes without making any distinction between the factor of safety or strength provided by the steel rope 13 compared to the synthetic ropes 12.” Reply Br. 2. Although Ishii does not explicitly state what safety factor may apply to steel rope 13, the fact that it is calculated separately from the group of four synthetic ropes shown in Figure 3 (relating to Embodiment 2) supports the finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from Ishii that steel rope 13 has a different load carrying capacity than one of the synthetic ropes. Appellants state that “[superfluous or not, there is no teaching that the steel rope 13 has a different load carrying capacity.” Reply Br. 2. Again, however, Appellants’ argument does not take into account the reasonable inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to draw from the specific teachings of Ishii. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ishii and Baranda ’061. Thus, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 1, and, for the same reasons, the rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 23, and 24 argued together therewith. 5 Appeal 2015-002052 Application 12/090,379 Appellants do not present separate arguments in support of claims 5, 6, 9-12, 17—20, and 25—27. Thus, for the same reasons, we sustain the rejections under § 103(a) of claims 5, 6, 9—12, 17—20, and 25—27. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3—13, 15—20, and 23—27. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation