Ex Parte Prasad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2014

11572236 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DILIP PRASAD, BRICE N. CASSENTI,
PEDRO S. BARANDA, WILLIAM VERONESI,
WILLIAM C. PERRON, ARY O. MELLO, JR.,
PAUL A. STUCKY, JOHN T. PITTS, JOHN P. WESSON,
and MARK S. THOMPSON
____________________

Appeal 2012-009898
Application 11/572,236
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES J. MAYBERRY, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
18–24, 26–32, and 35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a guiding surface on a sheave for use in an
elevator system. Spec. 1, ll. 4–5. Claims 18 and 24, reproduced below, are
representative of the claimed subject matter:
Appeal 2012-009898
Application 11/572,236
2
18. A sheave for use in an elevator system, comprising:
a sheave body having a central axis and a crowned belt
guiding surface including a selected reference point, the
crowned belt guiding surface including a surface profile
extending in an axial direction along at least a portion of the
belt guiding surface, the surface profile defined as an nth degree
polynomial of a distance from the selected reference point on
the belt guiding surface where n is a number greater than 2.

24. An assembly for use in an elevator system, comprising:
a belt having a width; and
a sheave that supports the belt and is rotatable about a
central axis as the belt moves, the sheave including a crowned
belt guiding surface having a width that extends between edges
on opposite sides of the sheave, the entire belt guiding surface
being a single piece of material that presents a continuous,
uninterrupted surface, the belt guiding surface having a central
portion that has a width across which the belt guiding surface is
aligned parallel to the central axis so as to be at least partially
equidistant from the central axis, and side portions extending
from the central portion toward corresponding edges of the
sheave that are curved relative to the central axis, wherein the
width of the central portion of the belt guiding surface is equal
to approximately two times the difference between the belt
width and one-half the width of the belt guiding surface.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Renner
Schmid
Baranda et al.
(hereinafter, “Baranda”)
US 2,966,065
US 4,991,784
US 6,419,208 B1
Dec. 27, 1960
Feb. 12, 1991
July 16, 2002

Appeal 2012-009898
Application 11/572,236
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 18–23, 31–33, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Baranda and Renner. Ans. 4.
Claims 24 and 26–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baranda, Renner, and Schmid. Id. at 6.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection over Baranda and Renner
Claims 18 and 31
Independent claim 18 recites, in part, “the surface profile [of the belt
guiding surface] defined as an nth degree polynomial of a distance from the
selected reference point on the belt guiding surface where n is a number
greater than 2.” Appeal Br. 11, Claims App. Similarly, independent claim
31 recites “the first side portions [of the belt guiding surface] have a surface
profile defined as an nth degree polynomial of a distance from the selected
reference point on the belt guiding surface, wherein n is a number greater
than two.” Id at 13. The Examiner finds that Baranda discloses most of the
subject matter of claims 18 and 31 but is “silent with respect to their ‘n’ of
their ‘nth degree polynomial’ [being] a number greater than 2.” Ans. 4–5.
The Examiner further finds that Renner discloses a belt guiding surface
defined by an nth degree polynomial with n greater than 2. Id. at 5
(identifying the curved section S3 of Fig. 7 of Renner as satisfying the
recited belt guiding surface shape).
Appellants argue that Renner fails to teach a belt guiding surface
defined by an nth degree polynomial with n greater than 2. Appeal Br. 4.
Specifically, Appellants argue that the curved portion of the belt guiding
surface depicted in Figure 7 of Renner (denoted S3) is an arc of a circle and,
Appeal 2012-009898
Application 11/572,236
4
therefore, is not defined by an nth degree polynomial with n greater than 2.
Id. at 4–5.
The Examiner finds that the surface S3 is not solely defined as a circle.
See Ans. 5 (citing to Renner, col. 8, l. 45). This finding is consistent with
Renner’s teaching that “[t]he sloping edge portions [of the belt guiding
surface] may be formed . . . with a curved or radius form S3, Fig. 7.”
Renner, col. 3, ll. 48–54 (emphasis added). That is, the belt guiding surface
portion S3 may be either a radius form (the arc of a circle) or a curved form,
which the Examiner finds to be defined by an nth degree polynomial with n
greater than 2. See Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erroneously bases his finding on
the language in Renner that states that the surface S3 has a slope that
“becomes steeper as it approaches the pulley edge E.” Appeal Br. 5; see
also Ans. 5; Renner col. 8, ll. 43–47. Appellants illustrate that a circular arc
would exhibit this same slope characteristic. Id. We conclude that the
Examiner erred in finding that Renner discloses a sheave with a portion of
its surface profile necessarily defined by an nth degree polynomial with n
greater than 2.
The Examiner’s basis for concluding that the surface S3 is defined by
an nth degree polynomial with n greater than 2 is the language of Renner
indicated by Appellants – that the surface S3 has a slope that “becomes
steeper as it approaches the pulley edge E.” See Ans. 5; see also Renner col.
8, ll. 43–47. As Appellants argue, this language does not necessarily equate
to a surface profile defined by an nth degree polynomial with n greater than
2. See Appeal Br. 5 (illustrating that a circular profile (n=2) would have a
slope that increases as you move towards a pulley edge). Similarly, a
parabola, a hyperbola, and an ellipse, all are curved forms defined by an nth
Appeal 2012-009898
Application 11/572,236
5
degree polynomial with n equal to 2, and a sheave with such surfaces would
have a slope that increases as you move toward the edge of the sheave.
Accordingly, the cited language in Renner cannot support a finding that the
surface S3 of Renner is necessarily defined by an nth degree polynomial with
n greater than 2.
Absent any basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to support his
finding, the Examiner’s conclusion that independent claims 18 and 31 are
obvious over Baranda and Renner cannot be sustained. See In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on section 103
clearly must rest on a factual basis.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 18 and 31, and their respective dependent
claims 19–23 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Baranda and Renner.

Obviousness Rejection over Baranda, Renner, and Schmid
Claim 24
Claim 24 recites, in part, “wherein the width of the central portion of
the belt guiding surface is equal to approximately two times the difference
between the belt width and one-half the width of the belt guiding surface.”
Appeal Br. 12, Claims App. The Examiner finds that Baranda discloses
much of the subject matter of independent claim 24, but fails to disclose a
sheave with a belt guiding surface with a width of the central portion as
recited in claim 24. Ans. 6–7. The Examiner finds that Schmid discloses a
belt guiding surface of a sheave with a central portion having the recited
dimension. Id. at 8. Specifically, the Examiner relies on the configuration
Appeal 2012-009898
Application 11/572,236
6
depicted in Figure 2 of Schmid for disclosing the above-quoted subject
matter. Id.
Appellants argue that “the Schmid reference teaches an arrangement
in which there is no difference between the width of the strip 3 [the recited
belt width] and the width w of the groove 10 [the width of the belt guiding
surface].” Id. Appellants explain that, based on the requirement in claim 24,
the central portion 20 depicted in Figure 2 of Schmid would need to extend
the entire width of the groove to satisfy the claim language. Id. Appellants
contend that such a configuration is not disclosed in Figure 2 of Schmid. Id.
In response, the Examiner states that “the central portion (20) and the
side portions (18, 18) of Schmid have in summation a length greater than
that of the belt (3) of Schmid.” Ans. 12. The Examiner interprets the term
“width of the belt guiding surface” to encompass the surface length of each
surface component of the belt guiding surface, rather than the straight-line
width from edge to edge of the belt guiding surface. One of ordinary skill in
the art, in light of Appellants’ Specification, would not understand the term
“width of the belt guiding surface” to be as construed by the Examiner, as
this construction is inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification. The
Specification defines the width of the belt guiding surface, “c,” as the edge-
to-edge, straight-line width of the surface, not the sum of the linear width of
each surface component. See Spec., Fig. 3. As such, Appellants are correct
that Schmid’s “strip [3] has a width equal to the width of the groove [10]”
and thus, central portion 20 would need to extend the entire width of groove
10 to satisfy the claim language. See App. Br. 8 and Reply Br. 4.
Accordingly, contrary to the Examiner’s position, Schmid fails to disclose a
sheave with a belt guiding surface where “the width of the central portion of
the belt guiding surface is equal to approximately two times the difference
Appeal 2012-009898
Application 11/572,236
7
between the belt width and one-half the width of the belt guiding surface.”
Id. at 12, Claims App.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Baranda, Renner, and Schmid. For the same reasons, we do not sustain
the rejections of claims 26–30, which depend from claim 24, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baranda, Renner, and Schmid.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18–23, 31,
32, and 35 is reversed.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 26–
30 is reversed.

REVERSED

hh