Ex Parte Miller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13201680 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/201,680 08/16/2011
64779 7590 10/04/2016
CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
400 W MAPLE STE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robin Mihekun Miller
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.
60469-447PUS1; 7818US 2437
EXAMINER
TRUONG, MINH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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 ROBIN MIHEKUN MILLER, LEANDRE ADIFON, MARK
STEVEN THOMPSON, HAROLD TERRY, RICHARD J. ERICSON,
STEPHEN R. NICHOLS, and DARYL J. MARVIN
Appeal2015-001386
Application 13/201,680
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robin Mihekun Miller et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-18, and 21 as anticipated by Suozzo (US 3,741,351; iss.
June 26, 1973) and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 4, 5, 10-12, 19, and 20
as unpatentable over Suozzo and Conrad (US 156,541; iss. Nov. 3, 1874).
Claim 3 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2015-001386
Application 13/201,680
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to an elevator door frame. See
Spec. (Title), Fig. 1. Claims 1, 6, and 14 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. An elevator door frame, comprising:
a frame sill member;
a frame header member;
a plurality of frame jamb members between the sill
member and the header member;
a door sill member;
a door header member;
door jamb members between the door sill member and the
door header member;
a plurality of guide rail brackets supported on at least one
of the frame sill member, frame header member or one of the
frame jamb members; and
at least one guide rail section secured in a selected position
relative to the door frame by the guide rail brackets, the at least
one guide rail section being distinct from the frame jamb
members and the door jamb members.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Suozzo
Claims 1, 2, 6--9, 13-18, and 21
Independent claim 1 recites "a plurality of frame jamb members."
Appeal Br. 8, Claims App. Each of independent claims 6 and 14 recite
"frame jamb members." Id. at 9, 10, Claims App. The Examiner finds that
Suozzo discloses the limitations of claims 1, 6, and 14 including "a plurality
of frame jamb members (3 5) between the sill member and the header
member." See Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 3.
2
Appeal2015-001386
Application 13/201,680
Appellants contend that "[a] proper interpretation of the term 'frame
jamb member' makes that term distinct from something that would be used
as paneling as shown at 35 in the Suozzo reference." Appeal Br. 5.
According to Appellants, "[a] jamb member typically is situated underneath
and provides support for a header. The wall paneling 35 is not situated
beneath anything in the drawing and is not described as providing any
vertical support to any other portion of the Suozzo reference." Id.
Appellants conclude that "[t]here is no description [in Suozzo] of the finish
wall paneling 3 5 that in any way lends itself to being considered a frame
jamb member. Instead, the paneling 35 is described as providing the
finished wall surface." Id.; see also Reply Br. 1-2.
At the outset, we agree with Appellants that "[t]he Examiner's
interpretation of the finished wall paneling [3 5] as a jamb member is
unreasonable." Reply Br. 1; see also Appeal Br. 5. Suozzo discloses
"[ o ]nee in place the door panels 25 can be hung and as shown in FIG. 3 the
openings surrounding the door way may be enclosed by suitable paneling 35
connected to the horizontal and vertical members by brackets 36." Suozzo,
3:25-29.
Upon review of Suozzo' s disclosure, a skilled artisan would not
consider paneling 35 of Suozzo to constitute "frame jamb members" as
recited in claims 1, 6, and 14. 1 See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358
(Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Although the PTO must give claims their broadest
1 The Examiner cites to a definition of the term "jamb" as "one of a pair of
vertical posts or pieces that together form the sides of a door, window frame,
or fireplace, for example." Ans. 3 (emphasis added) (citing
thefreedictionary.com). We note that paneling 35 of Suozzo is horizontal and
at the top and bottom of door panels 25. See Suozzo, Figs. 2, 3.
3
Appeal2015-001386
Application 13/201,680
reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one
that those skilled in the art would reach."). Consequently, the Examiner fails
to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Suozzo anticipates the
device of claim 1, the system of claim 6, or the method of claim 14.2
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-18, and 21 as anticipated by
Suozzo.
Obviousness over Suozzo and Conrad
Claims 4, 5, 10--12, 19, and 20
The Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 5, 10-12, 19, and 20 as
unpatentable over Suozzo and Conrad is based on the same unsupported
findings discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1. See Final
Act 6-7. The Examiner does not rely on Conrad to remedy the deficiency of
Suozzo. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above for the
rejection of claims 1, 6, and 14, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 4, 5, 10-12, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Suozzo and Conrad.
2 We note that any consideration of what a skilled artisan may deem obvious
regarding the possible advantages of including frame jamb members to an
elevator door frame is immaterial to the anticipation rejection made here and
before us for review. We further note that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
is a review body, rather than a place of initial examination, and we therefore
decline to make a determination of what a skilled artisan may conclude; rather,
we leave it to the Examiner to determine the appropriateness of any further
course of action based on such a conclusion should there be further
prosecution of this application.
4
Appeal2015-001386
Application 13/201,680
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, and
4--21.
REVERSED
5