Ex Parte Terry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2012

11815455 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HARRY TERRY,
THERESA CHRISTY, and FRANK SANSEVERO
____________

Appeal 2010-009542
Application 11/815,455
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
3 and 4. App. Br. 2. Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 have been cancelled. See id. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2010-009542
Application 11/815,455

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 3 and 4 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 3 is
reproduced below:
3. An elevator system, comprising:
at least one hoistway;
at least two elevator cars independently traveling within said at
least one hoistway such that a number of floors between the elevator
cars varies;
at least one controller for controlling the operation of the
elevator cars in said at least one hoistway, said controller causing each
elevator car to stop or wait when further motion of the elevator car
would cause the elevator car to come too close to another one of said
elevator cars in said hoistway; and
a message delivering device in each of said elevator cars, said
device selected from one or more of
a visual indicator which displays a visual message
assuring passengers that the stop or wait is normal or
an audible device for presenting a message that the stop
or wait is normal.

REJECTIONS
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Foster (US 849,840; iss. Apr. 9, 1907) and Kamimura (US 6,786,305
B2; iss. Sep. 7, 2004).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Meissner (US 7,178,635 B2; iss. Feb. 20, 2007) and Kamimura.

Appeal 2010-009542
Application 11/815,455

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 3 and 4 as being indefinite
The Examiner concluded that claims 3 and 4 are indefinite because
they recite “at least two elevator cars independently traveling within said at
least one hoistway” but it is unclear how the cars travel independently when
the drive means for the cars cannot be determined from the Specification and
Appellants do not disclose how the cars travel independently. Ans. 3. The
Examiner determined that Appellants’ disclosure that two cars move in
different directions or one car moves as the other waits does not necessarily
mean independent travel if the cars have a common hoisting means because
“the term ‘independent’ has slightly different interpretations, and
Appellant’s original specification did not discuss the term, [so] it is unclear
as to how the appellant is using the term in the claims.” Ans. 5.
We agree with Appellants that a skilled artisan would understand what
is claimed when claims 3 and 4 are read in light of the Specification. Merely
that a claim is broad does not mean that it is indefinite. Claims 3 and 4 each
recite “at least two elevator cars independently traveling within said at least
one hoistway such that a number of floors between the elevator cars varies.”
See Reply Br. 1. Emphasis added. Appellants disclose that one or both cars
can be moved in a direction away from the other car. See Spec. 2, ll. 19-26.
Appellants also disclose that an upper car 24 may move upwardly into an
overhead area 36 while lower car 23 stops and delivers passengers to a floor.
Spec. 3, ll. 6-11; figs. 1, 2; see App. Br. 4. We cannot sustain the rejection
of claims 3 and 4.

Appeal 2010-009542
Application 11/815,455

4
Claims 3 and 4 as unpatentable over Foster and Kamimura
The Examiner found that Foster discloses an elevator system with at
least one hoistway (elevator well 1), at least two elevator cars (low-rise car
A, high-rise car B) that travel independently within hoistway 1 such that the
number of floors between elevator cars varies, and at least one controller to
control operation of the elevator cars to cause each car to stop or wait when
further motion of the car would cause the car to come too close to another
car. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner found that Kamimura discloses a similar two
car elevator system with a controller 12 for controlling operation of elevator
cars and a message delivering device in each car (visual indicator 13) that
displays a visual message assuring passengers that a stop or wait is normal
for a given situation and passengers in other cars are exiting. Ans. 4. The
Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to provide Foster with
a message delivering device to display to passengers the progress of another
car’s exiting process when cars are stopped, to give passengers a sense of
security, and to prevent passengers from getting into a panic, as taught by
Kamimura. Ans. 4 (citing col. 7, ll. 59-67). The Examiner also found that
Kamimura displays messages such as “Moving the car” or “Passengers of
the upper car are getting out of the car” when one car is stopped and waiting
for passengers to unload from the other car during a rescue operation so that
passengers understand the stopping and waiting is normal. Ans. 6.
Appellants argue that claims 3 and 4 call for providing a message to
assure passengers that a stop or wait of their elevator car is normal whereas
Kamimura “teaches a display 13 that displays information about the progress
of [a] rescue operation” and an indication of a normal operating condition is
Appeal 2010-009542
Application 11/815,455

5
not the same thing as a message during a rescue operation that is intended to
prevent passengers from panicking during the rescue operation while they
wait for a serviceman to come. App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 4. Appellants also
argue that combining Kamimura with Foster would provide the two cars of
Foster with an emergency rescue operation indicator providing information
regarding the status of another car during a rescue operation. App. Br. 5.
These arguments are not persuasive because they are an individual attack on
the references where the Examiner has relied on the combined teachings of
Foster and Kamimura. They do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
findings or conclusion of obviousness. The Examiner’s reason to combine
teachings of Foster and Kamimura is supported by a rational underpinning of
advising passengers in Foster when a car stops to avoid coming too close to,
or colliding with, another car in a hoistway. Ans. 4, 6-7. The Examiner
found that Kamimura’s visual indicator serves the same purpose as the
claimed message delivering device of keeping passengers calm when a car
stops due to spacing issues with another car in a hoistway, and this feature
would provide similar benefits in Foster’s system to keep passengers calm
during stops to avoid collisions with other cars in the same hoistway. Ans.
6-7. Kamimura’s system, which provides messages during stops for a quick
rescue, is capable of providing messages when a car stops for any reason.
Appellants also argue that there is no reason to combine Kamimura’s
rescue operation notification feature for a double-deck elevator with Foster,
which is not a double-deck elevator. App. Br. 6. Appellants also argue that
Kamimura has upper and lower cars that move together and a car space
adjusting device that adjusts an amount of space between the cars so the cars
Appeal 2010-009542
Application 11/815,455

6
cannot come too close to each other or collide. Reply Br. 3-4. Appellants
further argue that the Examiner is mixing and matching different types of
elevator systems and has ignored express differences between a system like
Foster where there may be a concern over elevator cars coming too close
together and colliding and a double-deck system like Kamimura in which
there is never any such concern. Reply Br. 3-4. Appellants assert that the
double-deck elevator rescue situation in Kamimura would never happen in
Foster. Reply Br. 5. These individual attacks on the references are not
persuasive because the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of references would suggest to a skilled artisan, and they do not persuade us
of error in the Examiner’s reasons for combining the teachings of Kamimura
and Foster to yield the claimed system and method. Kamimura provides
messages during brief stops associated with quick rescue operations. Col. 1,
ll. 11-13 and 49-52. We sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 4.
Claims 3 and 4 as unpatentable over Meissner and Kamimura
The Examiner found that Meissner discloses an elevator system and
method as claimed with at least one hoistway (shaft 12), two elevator cars
(upper car 14, lower car 12) that travel independently in the hoistway so that
the number of floors between the cars varies, and at least one controller for
controlling the operation of the elevator cars to cause the cars to stop or wait
when further motion of a car would cause the elevator car to come too close
to another car in the hoistway. Ans. 4. The Examiner found that Kamimura
teaches a similar two car elevator system with a controller 12 and a message
delivering device (visual indicator 13) as claimed. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner
determined that it would have been obvious to provide Meissner’s elevator
Appeal 2010-009542
Application 11/815,455

7
cars with such a message delivering device to explain stoppage of one car
due to another car’s passengers exiting, give passengers a sense of security,
and prevent passengers from panicking as taught by Kamimura. Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that Meissner is not a double-deck elevator so the
double-deck rescue feature of Kamimura has no relevance in Meissner and
the only explanation for the proposed combination is improper hindsight
reasoning. App. Br. 7; see Reply Br. 4-5. These arguments do not apprise
or persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusion of
obviousness, which is supported by a rational underpinning.
We sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 4.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the prior art rejections of claims 3 and 4 and REVERSE
the rejection of claims 3 and 4 for indefiniteness.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls