Ex Parte Bongardt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2017

12948967 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 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.
12/948,967 11/18/2010 Thomas Bongardt KLAB-34 4951
26875 7590 08/23/2017
WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
HOLWERDA, STEPHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2017 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):
usptodock@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS BONGARDT, DIRK JACOB,
THOMAS KOHLER, KLAUS SCHLICKENRIEDER,
and MARTIN WEISS
Appeal 2016-001100
Application 12/948,967
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thomas Bongardt et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 11—16 and 18—23.
Claims 1—10 and 17 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-001100
Application 12/948,967
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and a device for planning
and/or controlling a robot application on the basis of system and/or process
parameters. Spec. p. 1,11. 5—6.
Claims 11, 20, 21, and 23 are independent. Claim 11 is illustrative of
the claimed invention and reads as follows:
11. A method for planning or controlling a robot application
based on system or process parameters, the method comprising:
storing values of the parameters in a memory;
managing the parameter values with a controller during at
least one of planning or control of the robot application using a
graph structure;
the controller identifying selected users and permitting the
selected users to change some of the parameter values within
predefined limits, while preventing other users from changing
the parameter values; and
selectively changing parameter values based on input from
a user.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner has rejected claims 11—16 and 18—23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujita (US 5,963,712, issued Oct. 5,
1999) in view of Tenney (US 6,944,584 Bl, issued Sept. 13, 2005).
ANALYSIS
Claims 11, 12, 14—16, 18, and 20—23
Appellants present the same arguments for all of independent claims
11, 20, 21, and 23. See Appeal Br. 6—9; see also Reply Br. 2—5. Appellants
2
Appeal 2016-001100
Application 12/948,967
do not present separate arguments directed to dependent claims 12, 14—16,
18, and 22. Id. We thus regard claims 11, 12, 14—16, 18, and 20-23 to be
argued as a group. We take claim 11 as representative of this group, and
claims 12, 14—16, 18, and 20-23 stand or fall with claim 11. Appellants
present arguments for the separate patentability of dependent claims 13 and
19, which are addressed below under separate subheadings.
The Examiner finds that Fujita discloses most of the limitations of
claim 11 including a method for planning or controlling a robot application,
via operation of CPU 10, based on system or process parameters. Final Act.
3 (citing Fujita, Figs. 2, 4; col. 3,11. 18—30; col. 4,1. 23—col. 5,1. 47). More
particularly, the Examiner finds that Fujita discloses a controller 10 that
permits selected users to change some of the parameter values, such as shape
information and characteristic information, within predefined limits. Id.
(citing Fujita, Fig. 5A, col. 5,1. 25—col. 7,1. 12).
The Examiner relies on Tenney as teaching a controller that is
configured to identify selected users and prevent users other than the
permitted users from changing parameter values. Id. at 4. More
specifically, the Examiner finds that Tenney teaches a system for controlling
robots 111 in which client computers 121, 123, 125 communicate with
robots through a server 101 {id. (citing Tenney, Fig. 1; col. 3,1. 62—col. 4,1.
40)), and the client computers are configured to run graphical software with
which a user may program the robots and transmit such program to the
robots via the server {id. (citing Tenney, Figs. 1—3; col. 4,1. 53—col. 5,1. 20;
col. 6,1. 23—col. 7,1. 58)). The Examiner also finds that Tenney teaches
server software that operates according to a variety of access levels
3
Appeal 2016-001100
Application 12/948,967
governing which clients may modify which programs, thereby preventing
access and use by unauthorized users. Id. (citing Tenney, col. 8,11. 40—62)).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to “apply the
restricted access system of Tenney to the system of Fujita since doing so
would enhance the system by enhancing security.” Id.
Appellants argue that Fujita “fails to teach or suggest the combination
of features” set forth in the claims, and that “persons skilled in the art would
not have been motivated to modify” Fujita in view of Tenney as the
Examiner asserts. Appeal Br. 6. More specifically, Appellants assert that
Fujita is directed to a selectively configurable robot wherein a CPU of the
robot resides in the robot itself, in which two different modes (A, B) of
programming are used to control the assembled robot when it is created. Id.
at 7 (citing Fujita, col. 5,1. 25—col. 7,1. 12). Appellants maintain that, in the
first mode (A), “a designer who creates a program for controlling the robot
selects the robot components that will be assembled together,” while, in the
second mode (B), “a user freely selects the components of a robot and
combines them into an assembly, whereafter information stored on each of
the components is used by the CPU to develop a control program for the
assembled robot.” Id.
Appellants contend that Tenney’s system, in contrast, “includes a
server that can be accessed by multiple clients,” thereby necessitating a
server software that is “configured to limit access by authorized personnel to
ensure security against unauthorized access.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis
added) (citing Tenney, col. 6,11. 23—25, col. 8,11. 40-42); see also Reply Br.
3^4. Appellants maintain that “[tjhere is no teaching whatsoever in Tenney
4
Appeal 2016-001100
Application 12/948,967
[] of controlling access to individual computers that are not configured in a
client-server relationship.” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added) citing Tenney, col.
8,11. 16-82)).
According to Appellants, Fujita’s selectively configurable robot is not
accessible to multiple clients via a server, and does not “present an issue
wherein multiple clients have access to the CPU of the configurable robot.”
Appeal Br. 8, see also Reply Br. 3. Thus, Appellants posit that, because
“there is no apparent need to restrict such access” to Fujita’s robot, the
Examiner’s modification of Fujita in view of Tenney in order to arrive at the
claimed invention, is based on hindsight. Appeal Br. 8.
The Examiner takes the position, and we agree, that the teachings of
Tenney with respect to limiting access to authorized users would not be
regarded by persons of ordinary skill in the art as being strictly limited to
systems having multiple remote clients seeking access to a central server.
Ans. 6. The Examiner cites to the disclosure in Tenney that server 101
therein may operate as a standalone unit, and therefore the security access
features in Tenney would apply to such a configuration as well. Id. (citing
Tenney, col. 3 [sic., 4], 1. 18). Appellants’ retort that the “standalone”
language is taken out of context, and actually still requires a multiple-
client/server environment (Reply Br. 4) is belied by Tenney’s distinguishing
between a server being a “standalone unit,” on the one hand, or, on the other
hand, a server “unit. . . connected to other servers or clients” through a
network. Tenney, col. 4,11. 18—20.
To the extent that Appellants’ argument directed to Fujita not
involving multiple clients attempting to access the robot CPU is with regard
5
Appeal 2016-001100
Application 12/948,967
to the type of remote clients disclosed in Tenney, the argument does not
apprise us of error in the Examiner’s position for the reasons noted in the
paragraph above. Further, if Appellants’ argument is instead that the robot
CPUs in Fujita are not in an environment in which anything other than one
authorized user is present, we note that this ignores the fact that the
references are directed to industrial robots, and a person of ordinary skill in
the art would understand that the robots are intended to be in environments
in which both authorized users and unauthorized users may be present.
More tellingly, the Examiner takes the position that it would have been
obvious in view of Tenney “to adapt the [robot] system of Fujita to operate
within a client-server arrangement.” Ans. 6—7. Appellants do not take issue
with the Examiner’s conclusion, but only argue that the combination,
including this modification, would not meet certain claim limitations. Reply
Br. 5.
To that end, Appellants maintain that, in Fujita, it is the CPU that
manages parameter values while “Tenney [] discloses that a server is what
controls access by various clients.” Reply Br. 5. Thus, according to
Appellants, the combination of Fujita and Tenney would still not result in
the claimed invention, which requires that the controller that manages the
parameter values be the same controller that identifies and permits selected
users to change parameter values. Id.
We understand Appellants’ contention to be that combining Tenney’s
teachings with those of Fujita would result in a robotic system that utilizes
two different controllers, one for user authentication and one for changing
6
Appeal 2016-001100
Application 12/948,967
parameter values, as opposed to both being performed on the same
controller, as claimed.
First, this argument does not address the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner, which relies on Tenney’s teaching of a controller configured for
identifying selected users and preventing other than the permitted users from
changing parameter values. See Final Act. 4. The Examiner applies
Tenney’s teaching for the general concept of applying restricted access to
enhance security, and does not suggest adding an additional separate
controller. See id.', see also Ans. 6—7. Second, Appellants appear to be
arguing that, once some modification of Fujita is made based on a bodily
incorporation into Fujita of one or more specific teachings in Tenney, such
as in a controller allowing restricted access, further modification is needed to
result in the invention set forth in claim 11. The test for obviousness is not,
however, whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. “It is well-
established that a determination of obviousness based on the teachings from
multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of
elements.” In re Keller 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . .”).
The Examiner relies on the concept of applying restricted access to
enhance security, as disclosed by Tenney, in determining that it would have
been obvious to include such a feature or function in Fujita. See Final Act.
4. Accordingly, to the extent that Appellants are contending that the features
of Tenney and Fujita must be physically combinable, we disagree.
7
Appeal 2016-001100
Application 12/948,967
As discussed above, the Examiner’s rationale for combining the
teachings of Fujita and Tenney in the manner proposed is grounded in
teachings present in the references themselves (see Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 2—7)
and knowledge that was within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the
claimed invention was made, and not on Appellants’ disclosure. Thus, we
do no not agree with Appellants’ overall contention that the Examiner’s
rejection is based on impermissible hindsight.
None of Appellants’ arguments apprise us of Examiner error in
rejecting claim 11. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 as
unpatentable over Fujita and Tenney, with claims 12, 14—16, 18, and 20-23
falling with claim 11.
Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 11, and recites that “managing the
parameter values in the graph structure comprises managing the values in
clusters whereby two or more parameters are combined into a node.”
Appeal Br. 12, Claims App. (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Fujita teaches managing parameter values in
clusters via each memory 16, whereby two or more parameters are combined
into anode. Final Act. 5 (citing Fujita, Figs. 6—9; col. 6,1. 64—col. 7,1. 12;
col. 7,1. 15-col. 8,1. 37).
Appellants argue that the term “cluster” is “a term of art in graph
theory wherein parameters that are identified together, or that are used
together, are combined into a node” and that “persons skilled in the art
would understand that ‘managing the values in clusters’ means more than
just having a memory 16 on a component that will be assembled to form a
8
Appeal 2016-001100
Application 12/948,967
robot, and storing information (such as shape and motion information) in
that memory,” which is Appellants’ characterization of Fujita. Appeal Br. 9
(citing Spec., p. 3,11. 20-23); see also Reply Br. 5 (citing Spec., p. 2,1. 24—
p. 3,1. 24). The particular paragraph of the Specification states “[according
to a preferred embodiment, parameters are managed in clusters. In this case
two or more parameters, for example parameters that are only identified
together or in their total effect, are combined into a node. Advantageously,
this reduces the complexity of the graph structure and illustrates physical
interfaces better.” Spec., p. 3,11. 20—23 (emphases added).
Appellants maintain that Fujita only discloses that each memory 16
stores shape information and motion information related to its associated
component, and that a memory 13 stores a configuration of a particular robot
as a tree representing the arrangement of components. Appeal Br. 9—10. As
such, according to Appellants, “[njothing in Fujita [] teaches or suggests
managing parameter values in clusters, whereby two or more parameters are
combined into a node as set forth in claim 13.” Id. at 10.
The Examiner relies on the same paragraph on page 3 of the
Specification as do Appellants, and also on a paragraph at page 6 of the
Specification which states:
As an example, the motor and transmission parameters Ml, G1
of drive A1 are clustered into a subsystem A, as indicated by the
dashed line in Figure 2, since for example only the frictional
resistance of the entire drive A1 can be measured. Subsystem A
is managed accordingly as a node of the graph structure, and thus
represents the physical interface. If only the motor of drive A1
is exchanged, for example, the parameters of the entire
subsystem A must be newly identified accordingly.
9
Appeal 2016-001100
Application 12/948,967
Spec., p. 6,11. 1—6 (emphases added). According to the Examiner, based on
these disclosures, “clustering” is the grouping of parameters into an
identifiable subsystem such as a node that reduces the complexity of the
physical interfaces. Ans. 8. The Examiner further explains that in Fujita’s
robot, memory 16 of thigh unit 3 A, for example, stores its shape information
and motion information. Id. The Examiner adds that because this
information is identifiable information that is managed by memory 16, Fujita
discloses the managing of “clusters” into a “node” aspect of claim 13. Id.
Alternatively, the Examiner notes that in building Fujita’s robot, grouping
distinguishable parameters 3A, 4A, 3B, and 4B together as “fore legs” would
also meet the limitations of claim 13. Id. at 8—9.
Concerning Appellants pointing out that Fujita “stores a configuration
of a particular robot as a ‘tree’ representing the arrangement of
components,” we observe that page 5, lines 25—27 of Appellants’
Specification similarly describe managing of parameters to have a tree
structure. See Spec. p. 5,11. 25—27.
Given that the Examiner appropriately relies on Appellants’
Specification to inform the construction of the claim terms “clusters” and
“node,” it was possibly inadvisable for the Examiner to take the position, in
the Examiner’s Answer, that “Appellants have submitted no evidence to
establish that ‘clusters’ is a term of art in graph theory,” and that “Appellants
have submitted no evidence that ‘persons skilled in the art’ would apply a
special definition for the term ‘clusters.’” Ans. 9. Those statements
prompted Appellants to, in the Reply Brief, cite to a publication titled
10
Appeal 2016-001100
Application 12/948,967
“Graph Clustering” by Schaeffer, as evidencing that “clusters” is a term of
art.1 Reply Br. 6. Appellants quote from Schaeffer as follows:
[gjraphs are structures formed by a set of vertices (also called
nodes) and a set of edges that are connections between pairs of
vertices. Graph clustering is the task of grouping the vertices of
the graph into clusters taking into consideration the edge
structure of the graph in such a way that there should be many
edges within each cluster and relatively few between the clusters.
Id. (citing Schaeffer, Introduction Section).
Appellants do not, however, explain how this passage aids in
differentiating the claim limitations from the portions of Fujita relied on by
the Examiner,2 and revert to asserting that “clustering in the context of graph
theory requires combining otherwise individual data/parameters so that they
can be used together.” Id. at 6—7. Appellants do not adequately explain how
this is not accomplished in Fujita. In other words, Appellants do not provide
evidence or persuasive arguments why the storing or grouping of shape
information and motion information in memory 16, or the grouping of
parameters 3A, 4A, 3B, and 4B together as “fore legs” in Fujita’s robot does
not constitute “combining” those parameters so that they can be used
together in a node.
Thus, Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error in
rejecting claim 13. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 13 is sustained.
1 Schaeffer, Graph Clustering, Computer Science Review I (2007).
2 To the extent that the quoted passage would somehow result in a different
claim construction than that arrived at using Appellants’ Specification, we
note that the latter is the only one pertinent to this Appeal.
11
Appeal 2016-001100
Application 12/948,967
Claim 19
Claim 19 depends from claim 11, and recites “automatically adjusting
parameter values associated with a component when the component is
exchanged, modified, added, or removed from the robot application.”
Appeal Br. 13, Claims App. (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Fujita teaches automatically adjusting
parameter values, such as shape information and characteristic information,
associated with a component when the component is exchanged, modified,
added, or removed from the robot application. Final Act. 6 (citing Tenney,
col. 5,1. 25—col. 7,1. 12).
Appellants contend that for Fujita’s robots, the programming is done
at the time the components are assembled, which is when a data graph
structure is created, to form the robot. Appeal Br. 10. Thus, according to
Appellants, Fujita does not discuss exchanging, modifying, adding, or
removing components from the assembled robot after the graph data
structure is created. Id. Appellants also point out that while Fujita indicates
that a user can freely change the configuration of the robot, Fujita discloses
that in two modes, A and B, concerning the creation of the program for
controlling the robot, there is no disclosure of exchanging, modifying,
adding, or removing components after the robot program has been created.
Id. at 10-11. Appellants further argue that, at best, Fujita would create a
different robot program by the CPU when a component is changed. See
Reply Br. 7.
The Examiner responds that Fujita teaches the limitations of claim 19
because if the user freely changes the configuration of the robot, “the
12
Appeal 2016-001100
Application 12/948,967
program facilitates the architecture of a robot in a new form in accordance
with these changes.” Ans. 11 (citing Fujita, col. 5,1. 30-col. 7,1. 12). The
Examiner also takes the position that “there is no claim language involving
events ‘after the graph structure has been created,’” and that “there is no
claim language in which events necessarily occur after a robot is created.”
Id. (emphasis added).
As noted by the Examiner and Appellants, Fujita teaches that, in mode
B, “the user freely selects the component units of a robot and freely
combines them into a complete assembly.” Fujita, col. 5,11. 36—39. Fujita
goes on to state that it is “possible to realize a robot apparatus which can be
applied to a configuration including two or more separate groups of arbitrary
component units combined into a complete assembly, and thus facilitate the
architecture of a robot in a new form.” Id. at col. 7,11. 7—12. In other words,
when different components are used, the robot that is formed would be
functional. Thus, Fujita teaches “automatically adjusting parameter values
associated with a component when the component is exchanged, modified,
added, or removed from the robot application” as claimed.
Appellants’ argument alleging that a different robot or a different
robot program is formed in Fujita when a components is changed is also
unpersuasive. First, if that is the case, then any modification would result in
a different robot, and the same effect would result in a modification of
Appellants’ robot. Second, as the Examiner advises, the claims do not
exclude any modification after the graph structure or a first robot is created.
“[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In
re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also In re Self,
13
Appeal 2016-001100
Application 12/948,967
671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[Ajppellant’s arguments fail from the
outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the
claims.”).
Thus, Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error in
rejecting claim 19. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 19 is sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11—16 and 18—23 as being
unpatentable over Fujita and Tenney is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
14