Appeal No. 2003-1347 Page 6
Application No. 09/825,044
persuasive because none of claims 7 to 11 recited that the area inside the elevator is
imaged.
Appellants also argue that none of the references cited disclose imaging a cab
sill and an entrance sill. We do not agree. As depicted in figure 1 of Platt, the cab sill
and the entrance sill are imaged.
Appellants also argue that there is no teaching of using a series of pictures in a
rapid fashion and drawing the conclusion relating to whether the door of an elevator is
safe to open or close. This argument is not persuasive because none of claims 7 to
11 recite using a series of pictures in a rapid fashion. In regard to utilization of the
recorded images to draw a conclusion relating to whether the door of an elevator is safe
to open or close, we note that the claims are not directed to a determination of safety
but only to controlling the operation of the elevator door based on the determination of
differences between sequential images which is taught by Platt.
We have considered the affidavit of Richard Gregory which states:
I have observed a prototype of the invention to which the above captioned
patent application is directed; and find that the invention described therein
has solved a major problem in the elevator art, and that it provides an
extremely efficient method of determining the presence of a person . . . or
persons within the elevator doorway or adjacent thereto. [page 1 to 2]
It is not clear whether the Gregory affidavit has been submitted to address the
anticipation of the invention or the obviousness of the invention. In stating that the
appellants’ invention solved a major problem in the elevator art, the affidavit appears to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007