Ex Parte Qiu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2016

12990876 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016)

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.
12/990,876 11/03/2010 Minglun Qiu 60469-405PUS1;
0006873US
3990
64779 7590 12/23/2016
CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
400 W MAPLE STE 350
EXAMINER
KRUER, STEFAN
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2016 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 MINGLUN QIU, ANYING SHEN, RICHARD S. BLAKELOCK,
JAY S. LENGACHER, BRIAN K. MEEK, SCOTT E. MCCULLOUGH,
CHARLES S. DARLING, and PATRICIA DERWINSKI
Appeal 2015-004426
Application 12/990,876
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, LISA M. GUIJT, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision2 rejecting claims 21—29, 31, 32, and 38.3 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants identify the real party of interest as Otis Elevator Company.
App. Br. 1.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated May 23, 2014 (“Final
Act.”).
3 Claims 1—20 have been cancelled (see Preliminary Amendment dated
Nov. 3, 2010), and claims 30, 33—37, 39, and 40 have been withdrawn (see
Non-Final Act. dated Aug. 29, 2013).
Appeal 2015-004426
Application 12/990,876
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 21, 32, 33, and 38 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 21, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter
on appeal.
21. An elevator system, comprising:
an elevator car having an integrated cabin and car frame
structure including a platform thickness between a floor surface
in the cabin and a lowermost surface on a support beam
supporting the car beneath the floor surface;
a sheave assembly supported beneath the floor surface, the
sheave assembly including a plurality of sheaves and a plurality
of subframe beams, the sheaves and subframe beams fitting
within the platform thickness such that the subframe beams and
the sheaves are not lower than the lowermost surface on the
support beam, wherein the subframe beams do not directly
contact the elevator car; and
a plurality of isolation members between the sheave
assembly and the elevator car, the isolation members isolating
vibrations associated with movement of the sheaves from an
interior of the cabin.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 21—23, 29, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schaffhauser (US 2006/0070819 Al; pub.
Apr. 6, 2006) and Mustalahti (US 2005/0006180 Al; pub. Jan. 2005).4
4 The Examiner’s inclusion of claim 31 in this rejection is considered a
typographical error, in view of the Examiner’s omission of any analysis
related to claim 31 as rejected in view of Schaffhauser and Mustalahti, and
the Examiner’s separately stated rejection of claim 31 in view of
Schaffhauser, Mustalahti, and Det. See Final Act. 2—5, 7—8.
2
Appeal 2015-004426
Application 12/990,876
II. Claims 24—28 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Schaffhauser, Mustalahti, and Salmon (US 5,199,529;
iss. Apr. 6, 1993).
III. Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schaffhauser, Mustalahti, and Det (2008/0099285 Al;
pub. May 1, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Independent claim 21 and dependent claims 22 and 29
Regarding independent claim 21, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Schaffhauser discloses “an elevator car (3) having an integrated cabin
(bordered by 40 and 21) and car frame structure (incl. 40, 21, 21.1 . . .).”
Final Act. 2 (citing Schaffhauser, Figs. 1, 2). The Examiner also finds that
Schaffhauser discloses the claimed sheave assembly, including sheaves
(rollers 16, 18) and subframe beams (U-shaped profile members 16.2). Id. at
3 (citing Schaffhauser || 16—17, Figs. 1, 2); see also Ans. 6. The Examiner
further finds that Schaffhauser discloses subframe beams (U-shaped profile
members 16.2) are within the platform thickness (height of floor 21), as
claimed, and “do not appear to contact a support beam (lower section of
[floor] 21, bordering/enclosing ‘floor channel 21.1’).” Ans. 6; see also Ans.
8 (“Schaffhauser discloses [] subframe beams (2 x 16.2 — each side).”). The
Examiner relies on Mustalahti for teaching isolation members (or vibration
absorbers 505) between the sheave assembly and the elevator car. Id. at 4.5
5 Although the Examiner finds that Mustalahti also teaches a sheave
assembly including sheaves and subframe beams (App. Br. 3), the Examiner
3
Appeal 2015-004426
Application 12/990,876
Specifically, the Examiner proposes modifying Schaffhauser, such that “the
isolation members of Mustalahti would be positioned between
[Schaffhauser’s subframe beams 16.2] and [floor 21] of the cabin of
Schaffhauser,” such that “the isolation members are between the elevator car
and sheave assembly.” Ans. 9. The Examiner reasons that such a
modification would have been obvious “to isolate vibration of the motion of
the sheaves from the cabin for ergonomics, without significantly impacting
the compact, integrated elevator car arrangement.” Final Act. 4.
First, Appellants argue that Schaffhauser fails to support the
Examiner’s finding that Schaffhauser’s elevator car 3 has “an integrated
cabin and car frame structure,” as claimed. App. Br. 5—6; Reply Br. 3^4.
Appellants submit that Schaffhauser “is silent regarding the manner in which
[elevator car 3] is structured,” and therefore, does not teach that elevator car
3 “has a structure that is different than the traditional structure in which a car
frame is manufactured separately from the elevator cabin portion of the car.”
App. Br. 6. Appellants distinguish between the terms “elevator car,” “car
frame,” and “cabin,” by explaining that “an elevator car includes a car frame
and a cabin,” wherein “the car frame includes beams such as crosshead,
stiles and safety plank beams,” and “the cabin, which is the box-like
structure supported on the frame, includes the floor, ceiling, side or wall
panels, the doors and the door return panels.” Id. at 4. Appellants conclude
that Schaffhauser “shows an elevator car frame and refers to that generically
as the elevator car 3” (Reply Br. 3), wherein “[t]he cabin itself, however, is
not shown, . . . [t]here are no doors depicted, for example” (id. at 4).
does not ultimately rely on this finding. See Ans. 8.
4
Appeal 2015-004426
Application 12/990,876
Appellants characterize Schaffhauser’s floor 21 as a “safety plank.” Id.
(Schaffhauser, Annotated Fig. 1).
The Examiner responds that Schaffhauser does not depict only a car
frame, but a car frame integrated into Schaffhauser’s car 3 because
Schaffhauser discloses that plates 10 of elevator car 3, and not of a car
frame, are described as setting down on buffers 9 arranged in shaft pit 8.
Ans. 5.
Regarding the meaning of the claim term “integrated,” the
Specification states that
the elevator car 22 has an integrated cabin and car frame
structure. The elevator car 22 does not have a traditional elevator
car frame and separately manufactured cabin that is placed onto
the frame. Instead, the structural members used for establishing
the cabin are also used for establishing the frame of the elevator
car 22.
Spec. 115.
We determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s finding that Schaffhauser’s elevator car 3 includes structures
associated with a car frame and a cabin, as described by Appellants supra,
such that Schaffhauser discloses “an elevator car having an integrated cabin
and car frame structure,” as claimed. App. Br. 18 (Claims App.). In
particular, Schaffhauser discloses that elevator car 3 has plates 10 that
interact with shaft pit 8 and buffers 9, which plates 10 are structures akin to
a car frame structure rather than a cabin structure, according to Appellants’
description supra. Schaffhauser also discloses that elevator car 3 has floor
21 with a floor surface, which is a cabin structure rather than a car frame
structure, according to Appellants’ description supra. See Schaffhauser
1114, 15, Fig. 1. Moreover, Schaffhauser describes floor 21 as having a
5
Appeal 2015-004426
Application 12/990,876
beam structure, wherein rollers 16,18 are integrated into floor 21 and floor
21 has a floor channel 21.1 for belt 11, such that floor 21 has a surface used
for the cabin and also a beam used for the car frame structure, according to
Appellants’ description supra. See id. 15, Fig. 1. Notably, Schaffhauser
refers to element 21 as a floor and not as a safety plank, and also notably, the
figures in Appellants’ Specification, which depict an integrated elevator car,
also do not show any cabin doors.
Second, Appellants argue that Mustalahti fails to disclose a plurality
of subframe beam portions, however, as set forth supra, the Examiner also
relies on Schaffhauser for these structures. App. Br. 7—9; Ans. 8. Thus,
Appellants’ argument is not indicative of error.
Third, Appellants argue that “[w]hile Appellants’] claimed
arrangement isolates the sheave assembly within its subframe beams from
the integrated elevator car frame and cabin structure, neither [Schaffhauser
nor Mustalahti] provide such a result.” App. Br. 9. However, this argument
does not address the combination proposed by the Examiner as stated supra.
“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
when the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.” See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Fourth, Appellants argue that “there is no [reason to modify
Schaffhauser in view of Mustalahti] because there would be no benefit to
making the Examiner’s proposed combination.” App. Br. 10. In particular,
Appellants contend that adding Mustalahti’s vibration absorbers “will not
separate the vibrations associated with those deflecting rollers from the floor
of the car,” because Schaffhauser’s sheave assembly is integrated into floor
6
Appeal 2015-004426
Application 12/990,876
21, and also that “there is no subframe [in Schaffhauser] that would be
separated from the floor for purposes of isolating the sheaves and associated
vibration from that floor.” Id. However, Appellants’ argument does not
address the Examiner’s finding that Schaffhauser’s U-shaped profile
members 16.2 are subframe beams, which are intermediate of the sheaves
(or rollers 16, 18) and floor 21. Thus, Appellants’ argument is not indicative
of error.
Fifth, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s combination would
require “a significant amount of redesign,” involving “taking the deflecting
roller 16 and 18 and altering their arrangement from being ‘integrated into
the floor’ into a different type of arrangement where they are supported on a
subframe assembly having subframe beams that are somehow situated
relative to the elevator car.” App. Br. 10-11. However, this argument does
not address the Examiner’s finding that Schaffhauser discloses subframe
beams or the Examiner’s proposed modification of incorporating isolation
members between Schaffhauser’s U-shaped profile members 16.2 and floor
21. Thus, Appellants’ argument is not indicative of error.
Sixth, Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to explain how
Schaffhauser’s subframe beams (U-shaped profile members 16.2) “would be
still part of the floor 21 . . . yet be isolated from the cabin.” Reply Br. 6. In
particular, the Appellants contend that “the position of the isolators from
Mustalahti does not teach how to include isolation within an integrated cabin
and car frame structure arrangement.” Id. at 6—7. Mustalahti discloses that
“rope pulley 502 may be placed completely or partially inside the beam
504,” and that “elevator car 501 rests on the beam 504 comprised in the
structure, on vibration absorbers 505 placed between them.” Mustalahti
7
Appeal 2015-004426
Application 12/990,876
171. The Examiner finds, in view of this teaching, that it would have been
obvious to place isolation members between Schaffhauser’s U-shaped
profile members 16.2 and floor 21 to isolate vibration of the motion of the
sheaves from the cabin “for ergonomics, without significantly impacting the
compact, integrated elevator car arrangement,” as stated supra. Appellants’
argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rationale that one
skilled in the art would be led to apply Mustalahti’s known technique of
using vibration absorbers to isolate vibrations caused by rope pulleys from
the elevator car to Schaffhauser’s elevator car, and specifically, for isolating
the U-shaped profile members 16.2 from floor 21, to achieve the predictable
result of isolating vibrations caused by Schaffhauser’s sheave assemblies
from an interior of the cabin.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 21. Appellants chose not to present separate arguments for the
patentability of claims 22 and 29, and therefore, we also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 29.
Dependent claim 23
Claim 23, which depends from independent claim 21, recites “wherein
the isolation members provide isolation along three distinct axes that are
perpendicular to each other.” App. Br. 18 (Claims App.). The Examiner
finds that Mustalahti’s vibration absorbers 505 meet this claim recitation.
Final Act. 4. Appellants argue that “[t]he only direction of vibration
isolation provided in the Mustalahti reference is in a vertical direction (i.e.,
along a single axis),” because “the manner in which the vibration absorber
505 is shown in the Mustalahti reference cannot provide vibration isolation
in a front-to-back or side-to-side direction.” App. Br. 11—12. The Examiner
8
Appeal 2015-004426
Application 12/990,876
responds that “the isolation members of Mustalahti accept the entirety of the
weight of the cabin and therefore isolate vibrations in all planes and
directions,” at least with some effectiveness. Ans. 10—11. Appellants reply
that this rationale does not address the Examiner’s modification because
Schaffhauser “cannot include an arrangement where the entirety of the
weight of the cabin is separated from the car frame because they have to be
integrated together.” Reply Br. 7. However, Appellants’ argument does not
address the Examiner’s proposed modification of Schaffhauser, i.e., to
incorporate Mustalahti’s vibration absorbers 505 to isolate Schaffhauser’s
U-shaped profile members 16.2 from floor 21. Moreover, Appellants’
argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that
Mustalahti’s vibration absorbers 505, when incorporated into Schaffhauser’s
elevator car, would isolate vibrations in all planes and directions, because
Mustalahti’s vibration absorber 505 is depicted as a material without any
constraints on geometric vibration absorption capabilities. See, e.g.,
Mustalahti, Fig. 6. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 23.
Independent claim 38
Appellants argue that independent claim 38 is separately patentable
because claim 38 requires that “the support beam comprises two parallel
support beams having a generally C-shaped cross-section,” and that “the
Examiner does not even allege within the Office Action that this particular
structural arrangement is contained within the proposed combination of the
Schaffhauser and Mustalahti references.” App. Br. 12. The Examiner
correctly responds that, in the Final Action, the Examiner relied on
Schaffhauser for disclosing “[a] support beam (lower portion 12) comprises
9
Appeal 2015-004426
Application 12/990,876
two parallel walls of opposing construction” and on Mustalahti for
disclosing “support beam (504) is ‘... a C-, U-, I-, Z-section beam.” Ans. 14
(citing Mustalahti 171); see also Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner further
responds that together the references teach
to provide the opposing surfaces of the integrated floor of
Schaffhauser et al as each having a generally C-shaped cross-
section as taught by Mustalahti et al as a matter of design choice
in as much as the C-shaped construction ... is one of alternative,
mechanically equivalent configurations”, wherein the channel
(21.1) and the sheave assemblies (16, 18) of Schaffhauser are
adequately accommodated by opposing C-section beams as well.
Ans. 14; see also Final Act. 5. Appellants reply that “the Examiner appears
to be referring back to the ‘flanges/webbing’ of the beam 504 of the
Mustalahti reference as allegedly corresponding to the [claimed] subframe
bea[m]s,” and that “[t]his position is inconsistent with the Examiner’s new
position that the U-shaped profile member 16.2 are the subframe beams.”
Reply Br. 8. We disagree, in that the Examiner’s stated rejection modifies
Schaffhauser’s “support beam (lower portion of 21),” and does not involve
the subframe beam members or U-shaped profile members 16.2. Final Act.
4. Accordingly, for this reason and for the reasons stated with respect to
claim 21 supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 38.
Rejection II
Claims 24 and 32 recite “wherein at least one of the subframe beams
or the corresponding structural surface on the elevator car includes a recess
that at least partially receives a portion of a corresponding one of the
isolation members,” and claims 25—28 depend from claim 24. App. Br. 18,
20 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Salmon for teaching “recesses
(34, 36).” Final Act. 6. Appellants argue that “what the Examiner identifies
10
Appeal 2015-004426
Application 12/990,876
as recesses in the Salmon reference are not used for vibration absorbers,”
rather, “rolling members 22 of the Salmon reference are received between
the cups 18 and 20” and “the rolling member is ‘non-compressible’” used
for as “a self-centering feature.” App. Br. 13—14 (citing Salmon, 4:62). The
Examiner responds that “though the recesses as taught by Salmon
accommodate a ‘roller’, [Salmon’s] roller acts ‘in response to vibrations or
shocks imparted to the frame’ . . ., thereby acting as an isolation member,”
and that “[t]he teaching taken from Salmon is to provide a receptacle for
housing the isolation members of Schaffhauser et al as modified by
Mustalahti.” Ans. 12. Appellants reply that “[t]he Examiner’s analysis . . .
attempts to strain the teachings of the references to fit the claim language,”
and that “[t]his is a classic case of improper hindsight analysis.” Reply Br.
8.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Salmon’s cups 18, which
are affixed to the frame platform, are not sufficiently similar to recesses
within a beam or structural surface so as to disclose the limitations of claims
24 and 32. See Salmon, 3:18—20, Figs. 1, 2. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24—28 and 32.
Rejection III
Claim 31 depends from independent claim 21. Appellants chose not
to present separate arguments for the patentability of claim 31. Because we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 21, for the same
reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31.
11
Appeal 2015-004426
Application 12/990,876
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21—23, 29, and 38 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 24—28 and 32 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12