Ex Parte Lazar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 16, 2017

13944210 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2017)

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. 13/944,210 07/17/2013 David LAZAR 60469-399PUS3; 3019 4437-US-A 64779 7590 06/20/2017 CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 400 W MAPLE STE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 EXAMINER LANE, NICHOLAS J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/20/2017 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 DAVID LAZAR and MARTIN VRSECKY (Applicant: Otis Elevator Company) Appeal 2016-003242 Application 13/944,210 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 33—37. Claims 1—32 and 38—44 are cancelled.1 Amendment (filed July 10, 2015), 2-A [hereinafter “Amendment”]. Claims 45^47 are allowed. Final Act. 12. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 In the Answer, the Examiner indicates that the amendments made in the Amendment have been entered. Ans. 2—3. Because Appellants’ arguments are essentially directed to claim 33 as amended therein, in this Decision we treat the claims as they are amended in the Amendment. Appeal 2016-003242 Application 13/944,210 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants ’ Invention Appellants’ invention generally relates to a braking device to be used as an auxiliary brake of a passenger conveyor (e.g., an escalator or moving walkway) in an emergency or otherwise abnormal situation. Spec. 1:5—9. Independent claim 33 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 33. A braking device for a passenger conveyor having at least one moveable part comprising at least one projection on a side of the moveable part, the projection projecting away from a surface on the side of the moveable part at least partially in a direction that is generally parallel to an axis of rotation about which the moveable part rotates, the surface being generally perpendicular to the axis of rotation, the braking device comprising: a braking element having a braking portion that is selectively engageable with the moving part, the braking element being moveable in a first direction into an engagement position where the braking element engages the projection on the moveable part, the braking element being moveable in a second, different direction from the engagement position to a braking position, the braking element moving into the braking position responsive to movement of the moveable part urging the braking element toward the braking position, the braking element blocking movement of the moveable part beyond the braking position once the braking element reaches the braking position, and a stop member that an abutment surface of the braking element is received against in the braking position, engagement between the stop member and the abutment surface preventing movement of the braking element and the moveable part beyond the braking position, 2 Appeal 2016-003242 Application 13/944,210 wherein the braking element comprises a shaft having one end configured to engage the moveable part, wherein the first direction is aligned with a longitudinal axis of the shaft and the second direction is transverse to the first direction. Rejection Claims 33—37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Clark (US 4,175,727; issued Nov. 27, 1979), Handy et al. (US 1,566,475; issued Dec. 22, 1925) (“Handy”), and Ito (US 2007/0170409 Al; published July 26, 2007). Final Act. 10-11. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Clark, Handy, and Ito teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claim 33? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Clarke teaches a braking device comprising a moveable part. Ans. 4 (citing Clark, Fig. 2). The Examiner further finds Clarke teaches that a braking element is moveable in a first direction to cause the braking element to engage a projection on the moveable part; and that as the moveable part continues to rotate, the engagement of the braking element with the projection causes the braking element to move in a second direction into an engagement position that prevents the further rotation of the moveable part. Ans. 4—5 (citing Clarke, Fig. 2, 4:27—29). The Examiner acknowledges that “Clarke does not disclose that the first direction is aligned with a longitudinal axis of the shaft and that the second direction is 3 Appeal 2016-003242 Application 13/944,210 transverse to the first direction,” as required by claim 33, and relies upon Ito for teaching or suggesting these limitations. Ans. 5—6 (citing Ito, Fig. 2, 32, 33). Regarding combining the teachings of Clarke and Ito, the Examiner explains “the modification involves moving the actuator (127) [e.g., solenoid] from being actuated in a transverse direction [to] the longitudinal axis of the shaft (116) to having the actuator being actuated along the longitudinal direction of the shaft.” Ans. 7. Appellants contend the combination of Clarke and Ito is improper. App. Br. 3—7; Reply Br. 1^4. In particular, Appellants contend modifying the device of Clarke with the teachings of Ito would render the device of Clarke inoperable and incapable of performing its intended function. Reply Br. 1—3. Appellants contend [w]ith the Examiner’s repositioning of the solenoid 127, there is no longer any force to counteract the force of the spring 121 and the pawl 119 will therefore always be in a position where it will engage one of the notches 113 and prevent rotation of the hoist drum flange 34. Reply Br. 1—2. We find Appellants’ contention persuasive. Clarke relates to a safety device for a hoisting crane that provides means for dissipating kinetic energy following the accidental stoppage of a hoisted load and brings the load automatically to rest. Clarke 1:6—8, 2:27—30. Clarke teaches that a positive engaging pin or pawl of a drum emergency holding device is normally held in a retracted position by an energized solenoid. Clarke 4:22—25. When the solenoid is de-energized, the engaging pin is moved in a first direction (e.g., to the right, as depicted in Figure 2 of Clarke) by a spring. Clarke, Fig. 2, 4:25—27. The movement of the engaging pin in the first direction causes the 4 Appeal 2016-003242 Application 13/944,210 engaging pin to engage a notch of a flange. Clarke 4:27—31. As the flange continues to rotate, the engaging pin is pulled in a second direction (e.g., upwards as depicted in Figure 2 of Clarke) into a braking position that prevents the further rotation of the flange. Clarke, Fig. 2, 4:27—31. Clarke teaches, therefore, that the energized solenoid provides a force for retaining the engaging pin in the retracted position and the spring provides a force that is opposite to the force exerted by the solenoid and is sufficient for moving the engaging pin from the retracted position to the engagement position when the solenoid is de-energized. In the Examiner’s modified version of Clarke (Ans. 8), because the force provided by the spring is transverse to the force provided by the solenoid, the force exerted by the spring will cause the engaging pin to be continually engaged with the flange and/or will be insufficient for causing the engaging pin to move from the retracted position into the engagement position. As such, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 33 or the Examiner’s rejection of claims 34—37, which depend directly, or indirectly, from claim 33. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 33—37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 5