COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
NON-STATUTORY; S2: The elevator system provided an elevator service to
a special floor in a service configuration, not attainable by previous
systems, and was considered allowable in view of Schlumberger.
Rejection withdrawn.
***********
This decision deals with Applicant's request for review by the Commiss-
ioner of Patents of the Final Action on application 299,518 (Class 364-2)
assigned to Westinghouse Electric Corporation entitled ELEVATOR SYSTEM.
The inventor is Robert C. MacDonald. The Examiner in charge issued a
Final Action refusing to allow the application. A Hearing was held at
which Applicant was represented by his Patent Agents Mr. Robert H. Fox
and Mr. Edward H. Oldham.
The application relates to an elevator system and a strategy to service
one of the floors designated a special floor and provide a priority service
to it. The strategy may be connected into an existing elevator system and
responds to calls from switches at the main floor and the special floor.
It selects from the cars assigned to service the special floor, the closest
car not in service and not assigned by the system processor or by other
demands. It also determines if the special floor is in the upper half
of the building and if so gives up calls priority, whereas if in the lower
half down halls receive priority.
In figure 6, reproduced as follows, Applicant's system is placed to
permit a signal to pass from step 605 to 606 of the system described in
United States patent 3,851,733, issued to Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
and from step 605 to 604 for assignment. The operation from step 605 advances
to the first step 60 of Applicant's system where the special and main floor
numbers are stored, and then to step 62 which determines if there is an
up or down hall call at the special floor. If none exists, the signal
passes to step 64 and if there is no setting for the main floor, the signal
continues to step 606. If step 64 finds the main floor placed a demand
for the special floor, Applicant's particular strategy selects from the
cars assigned to service the special floor, the closest car not in service
and not assigned by the system processor or by other demands. If no car is
found the signal passes to step 606.
<IMG>
When a car is found at 70, a determination is made whether the car is above
the main floor 72 or at the main floor 73, and according to the findings an
appropriate assignment is made and sent to step 604.
Returning to step 62, if a demand is found at the special floor, step 90
carries out Applicant's particular strategy, and if no car is found at 92
the signal passes to 606. However, when a car is found, the position of
the car relative to the main floor is checked. If the car is closer to the
main floor, and there is a main floor demand for the special floor, the
signal passes to 72 for processing. If the car is closer to the special
floor and there is no up call an assignment passes via steps 100, 102 to
step 604. Should an up call be found at 98 a check for a down call is made
at 104 and if none is found the signal is processed through step 106 and
then 108, after which it may proceed by one of two paths before exit at 604.
Should an up and down call be found at 104, step 118 determines the location
of the special floor. If the special floor is located in the upper half,
the signal passes to steps 106, 108 etc. to 604 to serve the up hall call,
but if the special floor is in the lower half, the signal proceeds to
steps 118, 100, 102 to exit at 604 to serve the down hall call.
In the Final Action, the Examiner rejected the application for failure to
disclose any novel apparatus or new electronic circuit to enable a person
skilled in the art to carry out the strategies defined in the claims. He
referred to one of the criteria stated in a decision by the Appeal Board
that if the novelty lies solely in a program, then claims to a computer pro-
grammed in a novel manner are not directed to patentable subject matter. The
Examiner cited no prior art to show the claims were directed to a known
elevator system. He said, in part:
...
...the novelty of applicant's elevator system lies solely in
the programs implemented by the known programmable system
processor to operate the known elevator system in a novel
way as defined in claims 1 to 10
...
In his argument, Applicant urged that his system is clearly an elevator
system, and his claims are not directed to a computer nor a computer pro-
grammed in a manner expressed in any and all modes. He suggested that a
person skilled in the art would find sufficient information in the applica-
tion to arrange the elevator system set out in the claims. He also referred
to a United States Supreme Court decision published March 2, 1981, which
is before the decision in Schlumberger Canada Ltd. v The Commissioner of
Patents 56 CPR at 204 (1981).
The issue before the Board is whether or not the application is directed
to patentable subject matter in view of Sections 2 ann 36(1) of the Patent
Act. Claim 1 reads:
A method of providing elevator service for a special floor
of a building, which special floor is located between the
top and bottom floors, comprising the steps of:
providing means for registering up and down hall
calls from the special floor,
determining when registered up and down hall calls
coexist from the special floor;
and giving a predetermined one of such coexisting
hall calls priority over the other, according to the location
of the special floor in the building,
said step of giving priority to a predetermined one
of coexisting hall calls at the special floor including the
steps of giving the up hall call priority over the down hall
call when the special floor is located in the upper one-half
of the building, and giving the down hall call priority over
the up hall call when the special floor is located in the
lower one-half of the building.
We find guidance in considering the issue before us, in the Federal Court
decision in Schlumberger, supra. We note the decision was not available to
assist either the Examiner or the Applicant when the Final Action was taken.
In reaching his decision on computer-related subject matter, Pratte J. had
these comments:
In order to determine whether the application discloses a
patentable invention, it is first necessary to determine what,
according to the application, has been discovered.
and
I am of opinion that the fact that a computer is or should
be used to implement discovery does not change the nature of
that discovery
We learn from the application that the subject matter is directed towards
8 new strategy that may be placed in an elevator system to obtain a service
to a designated special floor between the uppermost and main floors of a
building. The application refers to elevator systems disclosed in United
States patents assigned to Applicant and says service to a special floor was
not obtainable by those systems. Further, we find the claims are directed to
the method and means of obtaining an elevator system operating with the new
strategy so that the special floor receives priority based on whether it is
in the upper or lower half of the building relative to the hall calls. We
see in the ~~~imed elevator arrangement that more than an algorithm or
a program is presented. In our view, Applicant's discovery pertains to
an elevator service to a special floor regardless of its position between
the top and bottom floors. In our view, incorporation of the new strategy
produces a kind of elevator service that may not be derived from the pre-
vious systems referred to by Applicant. We are persuaded the "that" discovered
by Applicant lies not merely in a program but in the kind of operation
brought to the elevator system. We consider Applicant's enhanced elevator
system is the kind of subject matter that may be patented under Section 2
of the Patent Act.
We turn to the Examiner's rejection of the disclosure on the ground of in-
sufficiency. Applicant argued his specification is sufficient to enable
a person skilled in the art to arrange the new elevator system in the manner
defined by the claims. It appears from the disclosure that by following the
steps outlined and using the known systems that an acceptable method and
means would be available to a person skilled in the art to practice the
system described. On the basis of the reasons and evidence advanced by the
Examiner, we are not prepared to refuse the application. We find the
strategy shown in figure 6 is different from any claimed in the above previous
systems and is sufficiently described.
We recommend the rejection of the application under Section 2 of the Act
for disclosing and claiming non-statutory subject matter, and under Section
36(1) of the Act for insufficiency of disclosure, be withdrawn.
A. McDonough M.G. Brown S.D. Kot
Chairman, Patent Appeal Board Assistant Chairman Member
I concur in the findings and the recommendation of the Patent Appeal Board.
Accordingly, I withdraw the Final Action and I remand the application to the
Examiner for prosecution consistent with the recommendation.
Agent for Applicant
McConnell & Fox
J.H.A. Gari‚py Box 510
Commissioner of Patents Hamilton, Ont.
L8N 3K2
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 6th. day of day, 1985