Ex Parte Wernas

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 17, 2008

10916786 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 17, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte INVENTIO AG
____________________

Appeal 2008-6059
Application 10/916,786
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided: December 17, 2008
____________________

Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and MICHAEL P.
TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal by the real party in interest, INVENTIO
AG (IAG), under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 5-11,
Appeal 2008-6059
Application 10/916,786

2
13, and 15.1 IAG requests reversal of the Examiner’s rejection of those
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

References Relied on by the Examiner
Vanderstegen 937,395 Oct. 19, 1909
Kaftan 4,819,295 Apr. 11, 1989

The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5-11, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kaftan and Vanderstegen.

The Invention
The invention relates to a safety closing system for the shaft door
panel of an elevator installation. (Spec. 1:7-8):
Claim 1 is reproduced below (Claims App’x: 11:2-10):
1. A safety closing system for a shaft door panel of an
elevator installation, in order to bring the shaft door panel into a
closed setting in the absence of an opening force, the safety closing
system comprising:

a helical tension spring adapted to be stressed in an open setting
of the shaft door panel;

a drive mass subject to gravitational force; and

1 The Examiner’s Answer lists claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13, and 15 as
rejected. (Ans. 3:1.) Claim 6 is not listed but is addressed in the
Examiner’s explanation of the rejection. (Ans. 4:6-11.) Claims 3 and 4 are
canceled. (Claims App’x 11:11.) IAG acknowledges that claims 1, 5-11,
13, and 15 are finally rejected (App. Br. 1:10) and states that those claims
are on appeal. (App. Br. 3:23).
Appeal 2008-6059
Application 10/916,786

3
a traction element coupling said spring and said drive mass with
the shaft door panel, wherein said helical tension spring forms a
vertical guideway for said drive mass.

B. ISSUE
Has the Examiner shown that Vanderstegen discloses a spring that
forms a vertical guideway for a drive mass?
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Kaftan discloses a screen 14 that travels along upper track 15
and lower track 16 to slide across an opening 13 of a door 12. (Kaftan 2:59-
62.)
2. A closure assembly 18 includes a housing 24 containing a block
and tackle assembly 27 and a spring 22. (Kaftan Figure 2.)
3. An upper end 25 of spring 22 is attached to a pulley 26 which is
in turn fastened to block and tackle 27. (Kaftan 3:21-23.)
4. A cord 19 runs through the block and tackle 27 and then from
housing 24 to screen 14. (Kaftan Figure 2.)
5. When screen 14 is opened, tension on cord 19 created by spring
22 exerts a closing force on screen 14. (Kaftan 3:4-9.)
6. The term “guideway” means “a channel or track for controlling
the line of motion of something.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
517 (10th ed. 1996).
7. In two embodiments of IAG’s specification, spring 14 is
coextensive with drive mass 12 and forms a channel for the drive mass.
(Spec: Figures 2A and 2C.)
Appeal 2008-6059
Application 10/916,786

4
8. In another embodiment of IAG’s specification, spring 14'
extends through drive mass 12' and forms a track for the drive mass (Figure
2B).
9. In the track embodiment of IAG’s Figure 2B, the periphery of
spring 14' physically contacts the interior sidewalls of the bore of the
counterweight and sets the position of the counterweight relative to the
spring during operation.
11. Vanderstegen discloses a window sash balance with a
counterweight “f” connected to sashline “a.” (Vanderstegen lines 22-26.)
12. A spring “c” is contained within an interior recess “e” of
counterweight “f.” (Vanderstegen lines 26-28; Figure.)
13. Spring “c” functions to prevent sudden jerks or shocks of the
sashline to prolong that line’s life. (Vanderstegen lines 9-14.)
14. Spring “c” is not disclosed as determining the position of the
counterweight.
D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The initial burden is on the examiner to establish a prima facie basis
to reject the claims. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
E. ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5-11, 13, and 15 as unpatentable over
Kaftan and Vanderstegen. We focus on the disputed limitations.
Independent claims 1 and 13 each include the limitation of “said
helical tension spring forms a vertical guideway for said drive means.” IAG
Appeal 2008-6059
Application 10/916,786

5
disputes that the Kaftan and Vanderstegen combination satisfies that
requirement.
The Examiner found Kaftan discloses a helical tension spring 22 and
that that an unnumbered portion of Kaftan’s block and tackle 27 forms a
drive mass. (Ans. 3:8-9.) The Examiner determined that Kaftan discloses
all the limitations of claim 1 and 13 with the exception that the “helical
tension spring forms a vertical guideway for said drive means.” To remedy
the deficiency, the examiner turned to Vanderstegen. According to the
Examiner, Vanderstegen teaches a helical spring “c” that forms a vertical
guideway for a drive mass “f”. (Ans. 3:13-14). The Examiner stated (Ans.
3:16-18):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to form the helical tension spring disclosed
by Kaftan as a vertical guideway for a drive mass as taught by
Vanderstengen [sic, Vanderstegen] to facilitate the travel of the drive
mass.

IAG argues that the Examiner does not explain how the teachings of
Vanderstegen would apply to form Kaftan’s helical tension spring as a
vertical guideway. (App. Br. 8:23-24.) According to IAG, the common
meaning of guideway is a groove or channel directing movement where the
groove or channel controls the direction in which a moving object travels.
(Reply. Br. 5:28-30.) IAG contends that the spring “c” in Vanderstegen
does not form a vertical guideway for counterweight “f” because the spring
does not influence the travel path of the counterweight. (App. Br. 9:4-17.)
The dispute hinges on whether the spring in Vanderstegen forms a
vertical guideway for a drive mass. For the reasons below, we conclude that
the Examiner has not shown that it does.
Appeal 2008-6059
Application 10/916,786

6
Vanderstegen discloses a window sash balance with a counterweight
“f” connected to sashline “a.” (Vanderstegen lines 22-31.) A spring “c” is
contained within a recess “e” of the counterweight. Spring “c” functions to
prevent sudden jerks or shocks of the sashline to prolong the sashline’s life.
(Vanderstegen lines 9-14.)
The term “guideway” means “a channel or track for controlling the
line of motion of something.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
517 (10th ed. 1996). In the context of IAG’s specification, two embodiments
show a spring 14 that surrounds a drive mass 12 and forms a channel for the
drive mass. (Spec: Figures 2A and 2C.) In another embodiment, spring 14'
extends through a bore in drive mass 12' and forms a track for the drive mass
(Figure 2B). In all three embodiments, the spring is coextensive with the
drive mass and physically defines the path of the drive mass’ motion. In the
track embodiment of Figure 2B, the periphery of spring 14' physically
contacts the interior sidewalls of the bore of the counterweight. The contact
of the spring with sidewalls of the bore determines the position that the
counterweight takes during its operation.
In Vanderstegen, spring “c” is contained within an interior recess “e”
of the counterweight “f.” Evidently, the Examiner relied on Vanderstegen’s
spring as forming a track for counterweight “f.” However, as shown in
Vanderstegen’s figure, spring “c” does not contact the sidewalls of recess
“e.” Instead, spring “c” is disclosed as simply being disposed between a
lower cross piece “g” within recess “e” and the upper end of the recess.
(Vanderstegen lines 26-28.) In that configuration, the spring prevents
sudden jerks of the sashline to prolong the life of the line. (Vanderstegen
lines 10-14.) The spring is not disclosed as determining the position of the
Appeal 2008-6059
Application 10/916,786

7
counterweight. Because the spring is fully contained within the
counterweight, it will follow any travel path of the counterweight.
The initial burden is on the examiner to establish a prima facie basis
to reject the claims. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443; In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468. Here, the Examiner has not adequately explained why or how the
spring in Vanderstegen forms a vertical guideway for the counterweight.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kaftan and Vanderstegen. Claims 5-11 and 15
are dependent, either directly or indirectly, on either claim 1 or 13. We also
do not sustain the rejection of claims 5-11 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kaftan and Vanderstegen
F. CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in determining that the combination of Kaftan
and Vanderstegen teaches a helical tension spring that forms a vertical
guideway for a drive mass.
G. ORDER
The rejection of claims 1, 5-11, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kaftan and Vanderstegen is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2008-6059
Application 10/916,786

8

MAT

Fraser, Clemens, Martin & Miller LLC
28366 Kensington Lane
Perrysburg OH 43551