Ex Parte FURUTA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2017

14031648 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 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.
14/031,648 09/19/2013 Tomoyuki FURUTA 4952-139 1090
22429 7590 12/27/2017
HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP
2318 Mill Road
Suite 1400
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
LAFLAME JR, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2017 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):
docketing @ ipfirm. com
pair_lhhb @ firsttofile. com
EAnastasio @ IPFirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOMOYUKI FURUTA and AKIYOSHI KAWAHARA
Appeal 2018-000609
Application 14/031,648
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’
decision, as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated December 20,
2016 (“Non-Final Act.”), rejecting claims 1-8, 10, and 11. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, FANUC CORPORATION, which,
according to the Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-000609
Application 14/031,648
BACKGROUND
The disclosed subject matter “relates to a wire electric discharge
machine having a function of discriminating, before applying a voltage to a
machining gap at the start of machining, a shaft feed control system that can
be executed from machining conditions set in advance.” Spec. 1. Claim 1,
the sole independent claim, is reproduced below, with emphasis added, and
with bracketed letters added to identify each clause:
1. A wire electric discharge machine that
applies a voltage to a machining gap between a
wire electrode and a workpiece arranged on a table
to generate electric discharge and machines the
workpiece while moving the wire electrode
relatively to the table, the wire electric discharge
machine comprising:
[A] a shaft feed control unit capable of
performing shaft feed in a plurality of shaft feed
control systems;
[B] a machining condition input unit
configured to input parameters for determining
machining conditions;
[C] a shaft feed control system storing unit
in which setting values of the parameters included
in the machining conditions and practicable shaft
feed control systems are stored in association with
each other; and
[D] a shaft feed control system
discriminating unit configured to discriminate the
practicable shaft feed control systems according to
the parameters input by the machining condition
input unit and contents stored in the shaft feed
control system storing unit, wherein
2
Appeal 2018-000609
Application 14/031,648
[E] all the shaft feed control systems are
prioritized in advance and the shaft feed control
system with the highest priority is selected out of
all the discriminated shaft feed control systems
prior to machining the workpiece.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 6, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Lu (US 2003/0093175 Al, published May 15, 2003)
and Marchesi (US 2002/0190032 Al, published Dec. 19, 2002).
2. Claims 4, 5, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lu, Marchesi, and Naka (US 6,721,621 Bl, issued Apr.
13, 2004).
3. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lu, Marchesi, and Young (US 2009/0240368 Al,
published Sept. 24, 2009).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1 — Claims 1—3, 6, and 11
Regarding clause D of claim 1 (shown with emphasis above), the
Examiner found that Lu “discloses a shaft feed control system
discriminating unit/instruction judging unit (224) that judges the servo curve
[0021] stored in the shaft feed control system storing unit/storage unit (222)
(the servo curve data includes the voltage and wire cutting speed parameters
3
Appeal 2018-000609
Application 14/031,648
[0006]).”2 Non-Final Act. 5; see also id. at 2-3 (the Examiner interpreting
this claim limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), sixth paragraph).
Clause D requires the recited “unit” to be “configured to discriminate
the practicable shaft feed control systems according to [ 1] the parameters
input by the machining condition input unit and [2] contents stored in the
shaft feed control system storing unit.”3 Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added). In light of the Specification, the phrase “discriminate the
practicable shaft feed control systems” means to identify certain “shaft feed
control systems” that are available based on the two listed sources of
information.
For example, in the context of the disclosed “First Embodiment,” the
Specification describes (1) inputting values for certain machining condition
parameters (i.e., the “parameters input”) and (2) using Table 3 (i.e., the
“contents stored”) to identify certain “shaft feed control systems” as
available based on the “parameters input.” See Spec. 15-21. As one
specific example shown in Table 3, if a user input (1) parameter Pa in the
Pal range, (2) parameter Pb in the Pbl range, (3) parameter Pc in the Pc2
range, (4) parameter Pd in the Pd2 range, and (5) parameter Pe in the Pe2
range, the available “shaft feed control systems” would be Ma, Mb, and Md.
See Spec. 21 (“Setting Range Group No. 11”). In this example, “shaft feed
control system” Me would not be available. See Spec. 17 (listing, in Table
1, exemplary “shaft feed control systems” Ma through Md for the First
2 The bracketed text in this sentence was added by the Examiner, and
refers to paragraph numbers in Lu.
3 We will refer to [1] in this limitation as the “parameters input” and
[2] as the “contents stored.”
4
Appeal 2018-000609
Application 14/031,648
Embodiment). This process—i.e., identifying Ma, Mb, and Md out of the
overall group of Ma through Md—is an example of the “discriminate”
process recited in clause D.
With this background, we turn now to the arguments regarding clause
D. Appellant states that “[t]he Examiner cites the ‘instruction-judging unit’
224 of Lu as corresponding to the ‘shaft feed control system discriminating
unit’” in clause D and states that “Lu describes that the instruction-judging
unit 224 ‘will judge the program node is either a working instruction or a
discharge-servo curve instruction.” Appeal Br. 13 (citing Lu^[ 21)
(footnotes omitted). Appellant argues that instruction-judging unit 224
“merely executes the servo curve called for without any type of analysis of
the servo curve.” Id. at 14. For the reasons below, we agree with Appellant
that the record does not support the finding that instruction-judging unit 224
is configured to perform the “discriminate” process required by clause D.
Lu discloses a system for controlling a machining process in which an
operator can “swap [in] different discharge servo curve[s]” during
machining. Lu^[ 10. Each “discharge-servo curve” is a “relationship
[between] the gap-voltage deviation and the cutting speed.” Id. ^[ 6; see also
id. (describing Figure 2 as showing “a nonlinear discharge servo curve la
and a linear discharge-servo curve lb”). Lu further discloses setting a
“discharge-servo curve database,” defining each “discharge-servo curve”
using a “numerical value,” reading an initial “discharge-servo curve” into
the controller, and inputting the “processing program.” Lu 18, 19; see
also Fig. 5 (elements 11-14). The “processing program” comprises (at least)
two different types of instructions: (1) “working instruction[s]” and (2)
“discharge-servo curve instruction[s].” Lu ^ 19. As noted by Appellant, Lu
5
Appeal 2018-000609
Application 14/031,648
describes “instruction-judging unit 224” as performing the function of
determining whether the pending instruction (referred to as a “program
node”) is “either a working instruction or a discharge-servo curve
instruction.” Lu ^ 21.
If the instruction is a “discharge-servo curve instruction,” the system
will “swap [in] different discharge servo curve data” based on the
instruction. Lu ^ 21; see also id. TJ 19 (“Moreover, when program node is
‘discharge machining NO.n’, access the discharge-servo curve data 19,
which the nth discharge-servo curve data will be accessed from the
discharge-servo curve database and is then stored inside [] the multiple
discharge-servo curve controller, wherein the ‘discharge machining NO.n’ is
called as the discharge-servo curve instruction.”). If the instruction is a
“working instruction,” the system will machine the workpiece. See id. 19
(“[W]hen the program node is a working instruction, it executes the working
instruction 17, which is using the discharge-servo curve data of the internal
record of the multiple discharge-servo curve controller to execute the cutting
process . . . .” (emphasis added)).
The Examiner takes the position that instruction-judging unit 224 in
Lu satisfies clause D because it “can judge the program node (input from
machining condition input unit and contents stored in the shaft feed control
system storing unit, Lu flowchart Lig. 7)” and because it
“judges/distinguishes/discems whether the input is a working instruction or a
discharge-servo curve instruction (discriminate is defined as ‘to distinguish
by discerning or exposing differences’).” Ans. 10 (citing Lu ^ 21 and
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate). Although we
do not disagree with the Examiner’s findings as to the teachings of Lu, we
6
Appeal 2018-000609
Application 14/031,648
do not agree with the conclusion that, based on the relied-upon teachings,
instruction-judging unit 224 is configured to perform the “discriminate”
process required by clause D. Specifically, as discussed above, the phrase
“discriminate the practicable shaft feed control systems” in clause D means
to identify certain “shaft feed control systems” that are available based on
the two listed sources of information. The Examiner has not demonstrated
that instruction-judging unit 224 is configured to perform that function.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or the
rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, and 11, which depend from claim l.4
Rejections 2 and 3 — Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 20-22
(Claims App.). The Examiner’s added reliance on Naka (regarding
Rejection 2) and Young (regarding Rejection 3) does not remedy the
deficiencies in the rejection based on Lu and Marchesi, discussed above,
regarding claim 1 (see supra Rejection 1). Thus, for the same reasons
discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10.
DECISION
We reverse the decision to reject claims 1-8, 10, and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
4 In the event of further prosecution in this Application, the Examiner
may consider whether the “Description of the Prior Art” section of Lu (]fl| 3-
9) could serve as the basis for a rejection of the claimed subject matter.
7