Ex Parte Mustalahti et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2013

12213421 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2013)

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.
12/213,421 06/19/2008 Jorma Mustalahti 8959-000040/US 1979
30593 7590 06/26/2013
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
EXAMINER
KRUER, STEFAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JORMA MUSTALAHTI and ESKO AULANKO
____________________

Appeal 2011-004629
Application 12/213,421
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN,
and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004629
Application 12/213,421

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
13-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The Invention
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to an elevator traction sheave.
Spec. 1:7-8. Claims 13, 21, and 24 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 13, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
13. A traction sheave of an elevator,
comprising:
a plurality of rope grooves;
wherein the plurality of rope grooves
includes rope grooves with a first cross-sectional
shape,
wherein the plurality of rope grooves
includes rope grooves with a second cross-
sectional shape, and
wherein from a first side of the traction
sheave to a second side of the traction sheave, the
rope grooves alternate between the first cross-
sectional shape and the second cross-sectional
shape.

Evidence Relied Upon

Berkovitz
Honda
Köster
US 4,030,569
US 4,591,025
US 6,193,017 B1
Jun. 21, 1977
May 27, 1986
Feb. 27, 2001

Appeal 2011-004629
Application 12/213,421

3
The Rejections
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
I. Claims 13-16, 19-26, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Honda.
II. Claims 17-18 and 31-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Honda and Berkovitz.
III. Claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Honda and
Köster.

OPINION
I. Claims 13-16, 19-26, and 28-30 as unpatentable over Honda
Appellants present arguments for each of independent claims 13, 21,
and 24. App. Br. 22-30. We group the dependent claims subject to this
ground of rejection with their respective independent claim and select each
independent claim as representative of that group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).
Claim 13 and dependent claims 14-16, 19, and 20
Claim 13 is directed to a traction sheave of an elevator having a
plurality of rope grooves, wherein from the first side of the sheave to the
second side, those grooves alternate between first and second cross-sectional
shapes.
The Examiner found that Honda discloses an embodiment depicted in
Figure 8 of a traction sheave (driving sheave 1) that includes rope grooves of
first, second, and third cross-sectional shapes (first groove 6a, second groove
6b, and third groove 6c). Ans. 3, 7. The Examiner found that Honda is
silent with regard to alternating the rope grooves between the first cross-
Appeal 2011-004629
Application 12/213,421

4
sectional shape and the second cross-sectional shape from the first side of
the sheave to the second. Ans. 3. In other words, the Examiner found that
the difference between the subject matter of claim 13 and Honda’s Figure 8
was the sequencing of the rope grooves by cross-sectional shape from the
first to the second side of the sheave. The Examiner concluded that it would
have been obvious to modify Honda’s traction sheave (driving sheave 1) so
that the grooves alternate with respect to cross-sectional shape as claimed.
The Examiner reasoned that such a modification was the application of prior
knowledge in a predictable manner, and would provide the benefits of
uniform wear and enhanced rope service life. Ans. 3-4 (citing Honda col. 2,
ll. 2-28).
First, Appellants argue that the Examiner “improperly lumps
together” Honda’s Figures 5, 8, 10, and 11, and elaborates that this action
leads to a misstatement regarding what Honda discloses. App. Br. 22-23.
The Examiner clarifies that the rejection is based upon the embodiment
shown in Honda’s Figure 8. Ans. 7. For that reason, we consider
Appellants’ argument only with regard to what Honda discloses in Figure 8.
According to Appellants, in the embodiment shown in Honda’s Figure
8, from the first to the second side of the traction sheave (driving sheave 1),
the rope grooves do not alternate between a first and a second cross-
sectional shape as claimed.1 App. Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 8.

1 Appellants express this same argument in a different manner. Specifically,
Appellants characterize Honda’s traction sheave (driving sheave 1) shown in
Figure 8 as “symmetrical,” while in contrast the claimed traction sheave is
“asymmetrical.” App. Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 7-8. Appellants explain that the
claimed traction sheave is asymmetrical “in that the rope grooves alternate
between the first cross-sectional shape and the second cross-sectional shape
from a first side of the traction sheave to a second side of the traction
Appeal 2011-004629
Application 12/213,421

5
Appellants’ argument that Honda does not disclose alternating rope
grooves as claimed is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner because the Examiner did not find that Honda discloses rope
grooves that alternate as claimed. Rather, the Examiner concluded that
modification of Honda’s traction sheave so that the rope grooves alternate
between a first and second cross-sectional shape as claimed would have been
obvious. Ans. 3-4. Appellants’ argument would have been applicable to a
rejection of claim 13 as anticipated by Honda; however, it is not responsive
to this obviousness rejection.2 As such, this argument does not demonstrate
error by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 13.
Second, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness lacks support and does not provide the requisite reasoned
explanation because the Examiner has not established that the modification
resulted from the application of prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Reply Br. 13-15; see also App. Br. 23.
Appellants’ argument ignores that the Examiner found that Honda
discloses a sheave having rope grooves of differing cross-sectional shapes
provides the benefits of uniform wear across the grooves and enhancing the
service life of the rope. Ans. 4 (citing Honda, col. 2, ll. 2-28). Indeed, as the
Examiner found, Honda discloses that different rope groove shapes (cross-
sectional shapes) impart different friction loads on the rope thereby
equalizing the amount of wear of the grooves of the driving sheave. Ans. 4;

sheave.” Reply Br. 9. Thus, Appellants are simply repeating the argument
that Honda’s rope grooves do not alternate from the first to the second side
of the sheave between a first and a second cross-sectional shape as claimed.
2 Appellants contend that claim 13 is not anticipated by Honda. See e.g.,
Reply Br. 8, 9.
Appeal 2011-004629
Application 12/213,421

6
Honda, col. 2, ll. 20-28. Honda also discloses the specific example that
second groove 6b has a shape (cross-sectional shape) that exerts a greater
frictional force on main rope 3 than first groove 6a or third groove 6c, which
have a different shape, resulting in equal wear on the grooves. Honda, col.
4, ll. 51-62; fig. 8. In light of this, the Examiner’s reason for the proposed
modification has a rationale underpinning. By failing to address this
rationale, Appellants fail to illustrate error in the rejection.
Third, Appellants contend that claim 13 calls for the first and second
cross-sectional shapes to be distinct and the Examiner improperly ignored
this requirement. Reply Br. 11-12 (citing Ans. 8). The Examiner properly
treated claim 13 as calling for rope grooves having a first and a second
distinct cross-sectional shape. See Ans. 3-4. In the portion of the Answer
cited by Appellants, the Examiner points out that the claim does not identify
a specific cross-sectional shape for the first or the second rope groove (e.g.,
semi-circular); rather, the claim calls for the first and second cross-sectional
shapes to differ from each other. See Ans. 8. Therefore, this contention is
unpersuasive.
Consequently, we sustain the rejection of claim 13, and claims 14-16,
19, and 20 fall with claim 13.

Claim 21 and dependent claims 22 and 23
Independent claim 21 differs from independent claim 13 in that it calls
for the rope grooves to alternate between first, second, and third cross-
sectional shapes from the first side of the sheave to the second.
Appellants repeat the arguments that the Examiner improperly lumped
Honda’s Figures 5, 8, 10, and 11, that Honda does not disclose a sheave
Appeal 2011-004629
Application 12/213,421

7
having rope grooves that rotate between cross-sectional shapes from the first
to the second side as claimed, and that the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness lacks support. App. Br. 25-28; Reply Br. 4-6.
Our analysis here parallels that of claim 13, supra. The Examiner did
not improperly lump embodiments; rather, the Examiner relied upon the
embodiment of Honda shown in Figure 8. See Ans. 7. The Examiner did
not find that Honda discloses a traction sheave having rope grooves that
rotate between first, second, and third cross-sectional shapes from the first
side of the sheave to the second; rather, the Examiner concluded that such a
modification of Honda would have been obvious. See Ans. 3-4. The
Examiner provided a reasonable rationale that Appellants do not
persuasively challenge. Id. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim
21, and claims 22 and 23 fall with claim 21.

Claim 24 and dependent claims 25, 26, and 28-30
Independent claim 24 is directed to an elevator that includes a traction
sheave having a plurality of rope grooves, wherein from the first side of the
sheave to the second, those grooves alternate between first and second
grooves that have differing hosting-rope-holding properties.
Appellants repeat the arguments that the Examiner improperly lumped
Honda’s Figures 5, 8, 10, and 11, that Honda does not disclose rope grooves
sequenced by a cross-sectional shape as claimed, and that the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness lacks support. App. Br. 28-29; Reply Br. 10.
None of these arguments is tied to a distinction between the subject matter of
claim 24 and claim 13. These arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons
given with regard to claim 13, supra.
Appeal 2011-004629
Application 12/213,421

8
We sustain the rejection of claim 24, and claims 25, 26, and 28-30 fall
with claim 24.

II. Claims 17-18 and 31-32 as unpatentable over Honda and Berkovitz
Appellants argue that Berkovitz does not overcome the deficiencies of
Honda identified with regard to the respective independent claims and
Honda. App Br. 24, 31. Because we have determined there are no
deficiencies in Honda for Berkovitz to cure, this argument is unconvincing.

III. Claim 27 as unpatentable over Honda and Köster
Claim 27 depends from independent claim 24.
Appellants argue that Köster does not overcome the deficiencies of
Honda identified with regard to independent claim 24 and Honda. App Br.
31. Because we have determined there are no deficiencies in Honda for
Köster to cure, this argument is unconvincing.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13-32.
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).

AFFIRMED

Klh