Otis Elevator Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 7, 2022

2021002181 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2022)

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. 15/491,288 04/19/2017 XiaoBin Tang 92610US01 (U320581US) 9786 87423 7590 03/07/2022 Cantor Colburn LLP - Otis Elevator INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER UHLIR, CHRISTOPHER J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2837 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/07/2022 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 frederic.tenney@otis.com usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte XIAOBIN TANG Appeal 2021-002181 Application 15/491,288 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 16, and 33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Otis Elevator Company (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2021-002181 Application 15/491,288 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an elevator calling operation system and method. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An elevator calling operation system comprising: an elevator control apparatus, and a wrist-wearable smart device wirelessly connected to the elevator control apparatus; the wrist-wearable smart device comprising: an identity identification module which stores identity identification information about a passenger; and a motion sensor which is used for acquiring elevator calling motion information about the passenger performing an elevator calling operation; wherein the wrist-wearable smart device is configured to transmit the elevator calling motion information, in association with the identity identification information, to the elevator control apparatus; and the elevator control apparatus comprising: a passenger identity recognition module which is used for recognizing passenger identity information at least according to the identity identification information; and an elevator calling operation recognition module which is used for recognizing an elevator calling operation of the passenger according to the elevator calling motion information from the motion sensor, so as to make an elevator calling request for the elevator calling operation correspond to the recognized passenger identity information; wherein the elevator calling operation recognition module is further configured to determine, according to the elevator calling motion information from the motion sensor, a number of times of an elevator calling operation by the same passenger, and ignore, according to a number of times of the elevator calling operation, unnecessary elevator calling requests of the passenger. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Appeal 2021-002181 Application 15/491,288 3 Name Reference Date Haipus US 2015/0068849 A1 Mar. 12, 2015 Raitola US 2018/0222716 A1 Aug. 9, 2018 REJECTION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 16, 33 103 Raitola, Haipus OPINION Independent claims 1, 16, and 33 require an elevator calling operation system (claims 1 and 16) or method (claim 33) wherein a wrist-wearable smart device stores identity identification information about a passenger, acquires elevator calling motion information about the passenger when performing an elevator calling operation, and wirelessly transmits the elevator calling motion information, in association with the passenger identity information, to an elevator control apparatus that recognizes the passenger identity information, determines, according to the elevator calling motion information and passenger identity information, a number of times of an elevator calling operation by the same passenger, and ignores, according to the number of times of the elevator calling operation, unnecessary elevator calling requests of the passenger. Raitola discloses a smartwatch comprising a navigation system that detects the location of the smartwatch within its environment and is connected to a destination handling unit configured to wirelessly issue a call to an elevator within the environment (¶¶ 1, 4, 5, 45). A user can input a destination to the smartwatch by selecting a pre-programmed destination for the smartwatch ID or by manually selecting a desired destination floor or a destination from a list of preselected destinations provided for the user’s Appeal 2021-002181 Application 15/491,288 4 particular environment (¶¶ 7, 10). The navigation system uses destination data and smartwatch position detection components such as a gyrometer, accelerometer, barometer, and/or short-range transmitter to communicate with beacons at different locations within the building to guide the user to the elevator, destination floor, and destination location on that floor using map data on the smartwatch’s display (¶¶ 20, 45-47). Haipus uses an observation device such as a camera or proximity sensor in an elevator lobby and/or on a call-giving device to determine whether the same passenger gives a number of elevator calls in the same elevator lobby and/or same elevator car, and if so, removes all but the last call (¶ 8). “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Appellant’s Specification states that “the ‘elevator calling operation’ comprises the operation of inputting a destination floor location by a passenger outside an elevator car, and also comprises the operation of inputting the destination floor location by a passenger inside the elevator car, and the operations are generally completed by pushing buttons with fingers” (Spec. ¶ 55). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the Appellant’s claim term “elevator calling motion information” encompasses the information input to Raitola’s smartwatch as a result of the smartwatch prompting the user to select a destination (¶ 7). Regarding the Appellant’s claim requirement of determining, according to the elevator calling motion information, a number of times of Appeal 2021-002181 Application 15/491,288 5 an elevator calling operation by the same passenger, and ignoring, according to a number of times of the elevator calling operation, unnecessary elevator calling requests of the passenger, the Examiner concludes that it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Raitola’s elevator calling system and method to do so to “prevent ‘needless stops for the elevator car . . . [which] delay the arrival of passengers at their destination’ as taught in Haipus et al. (page 2 ¶ [0011])” (Non-final 4-8). Raitola’s smartwatch user provides elevator calling motion information, after being prompted to do so, by selecting a pre-programmed destination for the smartwatch ID or by manually selecting a destination floor or a destination from a list of preselected destinations provided for the user’s particular environment (¶ 7). The Examiner does not establish that Raitola’s smartwatch permits the user to enter a number of elevator calling operations. Hence, the Examiner does not establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had an apparent reason to modify Raitola’s system and method to ignore, according to a number of times of an elevator calling operation, unnecessary calling requests of the same passenger. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires an apparent reason to modify the prior art as proposed by the Examiner). CONCLUSION The Examiner has not set forth a factual basis that is sufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness of the Appellant’s claimed invention. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be Appeal 2021-002181 Application 15/491,288 6 interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art”). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection. SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 16, 33 103 Raitola, Haipus 1, 16, 33 REVERSED