Ex Parte Jacob et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2016

12765077 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121765,077 04/22/2010
26574 7590 04/29/2016
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
PA TENT DEPARTMENT
233 S. Wacker Drive-Suite 6600
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dirk Jacob
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Pl0,0122 (38698-0012) 8673
EXAMINER
LIN, ABBY YEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2016 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):
patents-CH@schiffhardin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIRK JACOB, BURKHARD STIMMEL,
MICHAEL THUEMMEL, and MARTIN WEISS
Appeal2014-001728
Application 12/765,077 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed invention "concerns a method and a device to
control a positioning device (in particular a welding robot) for welding with
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is KUKA Roboter
GmbH. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-001728
Application 12/765,077
an electrode holder and at least one force detection device to detect reaction
forces at the electrode holder." (Spec. 1.)
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative and reproduced below:
1. A method to control a positioning device formed by a
welding robot that can assume any of a plurality of poses for
welding a workpiece with an electrode holder and at least one
force detection device to detect reaction forces at the electrode
holder, comprising the steps of:
providing a processor with signals detected by said
detection device representing reaction forces on the electrode
holder that arise as a result of mechanical interaction by said
electrode holder with said workpiece;
in said processor, determining a sum of said reaction
forces on the electrode holder;
in said processor generating a regulation signal for setting
a pose of the positioning device on the basis of the determined
sum of reaction forces; and
emitting said regulation signal from an output of said
processor in a form usable by said welding robot to cause said
welding robot to assume said pose set by said regulation signal.
REJECTIONS
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter that Appellants regard as the invention.2
Claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Wiedemann (US 2005/0082340 Al, pub. Apr. 21, 2005).
Claims 2---6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wiedemann.
2 The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has
been withdrawn. (Answer 2.)
2
Appeal2014-001728
Application 12/765,077
FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the Examiner's findings of fact stated in the Final Office
Action and in the Answer. Additional findings of fact may appear in the
Analysis below.
ANALYSIS
The § 112, Second Paragraph, Rejection
The Examiner determines that claim 4 is indefinite because there is
insufficient antecedent basis for the term "the support element." (Final
Action 4.) Appellants provide no argument against this rejection. (See
Appeal Br. 4.) Therefore, we summarily affirm the rejection of claim 4
under§ 112, second paragraph.
The§ 102 Rejection
The Examiner finds that Wiedemann anticipates claim 1. (Final
Action 4--5.) Wiedemann generally "pertains to a process and a device for
controlling the pressing force of the electrodes of an electrode holder driven
by an electric motor, especially of an industrial robot." (Wiedemann i-f 1.)
Appellants argue that "in accordance with the invention, the overall
operation (positioning in order to select a pose) of the positioning device or
the robot is accomplished, rather than an adjustment that takes place only
within the electrode holder itself," as disclosed in Wiedemann. (Appeal
Br. 5.) Appellants additionally argue that, by contrast to Wiedemann, "in
accordance with the present invention, the electrode holder itself can be [a]
'dumb' component" (id.), and "the feedback control loop encompasses the
3
Appeal2014-001728
Application 12/765,077
overall robotic manipulator, as is necessary to effect the overall control of
that robotic manipulator" (id. at 6).
The Examiner answers, and we agree, that Appellants' arguments rely
on features that are not present in the claim language. (See Answer 2--4.)
Specifically, claim 1 is not limited to a "dumb" electrode holder or "the
overall operation" of the positioning device. (Appeal Br. 5.) Nor does
claim 1 recite a "feedback control loop that encompasses the overall robotic
manipulator." (Id. at 6.)
Additionally, the Examiner determines that
the positioning device is a welding robot with an electrode
holder[;] as stated in the claim preamble[,] "positioning device
formed by a welding robot that can assume any of a plurality
of poses for welding a workpiece with an electrode holder and
at least one force detection device to detect reaction forces at
the electrode holder" (Claim 1 ). Since the electrode holder is
part of the positioning device and robot, any movement of the
electrode holder is a pose change in the positioning device and
robot.
Thus, it can been seen that Wiedemann properly
anticipates the scope of the claim language because it uses
reaction forces to control the motion of electrodes on the
robot/electrode holder and thus controls pose of the positioning
device or robot.
(Answer 3.)
Appellants disagree and argue that, in Wiedemann, electrode holder 8
and robot 1 "are separately described and provided with separate reference
numerals. The description of movement of the industrial robot 1 with
respect to different axes Al, A2 and A3 is commonly understood as defining
the 'pose' that is assumed by the industrial robot 1." (Reply Br. 3.)
Appellants provide no persuasive evidence to support this proposed
4
Appeal2014-001728
Application 12/765,077
definition. Moreover, under Appellants' proposal, "pose" refers to a
"description of movement." (Id.) But "pose," as used in claim 1, refers to a
position, not a description of movement. 3 Thus, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive of error.
With respect to Appellants' argument that Wiedemann' s electrode
holder 8 and robot 1 are separate elements, we disagree. (See Reply Br. 3.)
Wiedemann discloses that electrode holder 8 "is fastened to the hand
flange 7 of the robot." (Wiedemann i-f 25.) Claim 1 recites "a welding robot
... with an electrode holder." Appellants do not persuasively argue why the
disclosure of an electrode holder fastened to the hand flange of a robot does
not expressly or inherently disclose a welding robot with an electrode
holder.
Appellants further argue that Wiedemann "also explicitly states that
the electrodes move only minimally" and that "[t ]his means that the
aforementioned 'pose' of the industrial robot 1 does not significantly
change." (Reply Br. at 3--4.) Claim 1, however, does not require any
minimum degree of movement to be associated with "setting a pose." Thus,
this argument of Appellants is also not persuasive of error.
For the above reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Because
claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 are argued together (Appeal Br. 4--7), claims 7, 9, and
10 fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
3 Raise, lower, rotate, etc. are descriptions of movement. "Pose," as used in
claim 1, refers to a position, e.g., "assume a pose." The Specification also
uses the term "pose" to refer to a position. (See, e.g., Spec. 1, 8.)
Therefore, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim term "pose"
includes "position."
5
Appeal2014-001728
Application 12/765,077
The§ 103 Rejection
Claims 2, 3, 8, and, 11
Appellants argue claims 2, 3, 8, and, 11 together. (See Appeal Br. 7-
10.) Therefore, these claims stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We select independent claim 11 as representative.
Independent claim 11 is directed to "[a] non-transitory computer-readable
storage medium encoded with programming instructions," but otherwise
contains limitations similar to the limitations of independent claim 1.
Appellants argue:
Appellants' statements above concerning the anticipation
rejection based on Wiedemann et al. are applicable to this
obviousness rejection as well. For those reasons, Appellants
submit that there is no teaching, guidance or motivation in the
Wiedemann et al. reference to transfer the statements therein
concerning operation of the welding gripper itself so as to apply
those welding gripper-dependent statements in Wiedemann et al.
to overall control of a robotic manipulator for the purpose of
overall positioning of the welding gripper by the manipulator.
(Appeal Br. 7.) For the reasons discussed above with regard to claim 1,
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection claim 11 or in the
rejection of claims 2, 3, and, 8, which were argued together with claim 11.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, and 11 under§ 103.
Claim 4
As discussed above, we sustain the rejection of claim 4 as indefinite.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because
this rejection is necessarily based on speculative assumptions as to the
meaning of the claim. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862---63 (CCPA 1962).
6
Appeal2014-001728
Application 12/765,077
Because our decision regarding the rejection of claim 4 under § 103 is
solely based on the ambiguity and indefiniteness of the claim, our decision
does not reflect in any manner on the adequacy or the prior art evidence
relied on in the Examiner's rejection.
Claims 5 and 6
Appellants argue claims 5 and 6 together. (See Appeal Br. 10-11.)
Therefore, these claims stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 5 is representative. It states:
5. A method as claimed in claim 1, comprising determining
the sum of reaction forces from a force that acts between the
electrode holder and a support element of the positioning device.
Appellants argue that
[s]ince the Wiedemann et al. reference is concerned solely with
regulating internal operation of the welding gripper itself, there
is no teaching therein, and no need, to take into account, for the
purpose of such internal regulation, a force that acts between the
welding gripper and some external component; such as a support
element of the positioning device.
(Appeal Br. 11, emphasis omitted.)
But the Examiner finds that Wiedemann "does disclose a pressure
sensor at the lever which connects the positioning device ('electric motor')
to the electrode holder (Figure 2, [0026-0027])." (Final Action 7.) Thus, the
Examiner determines, it would have been "obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention that a sum of reaction forces can
be determined from the force/pressure at that point." (Id.)
Appellants provide no persuasive argument in response. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under§ 103 as being unpatentable
over Wiedemann.
7
Appeal2014-001728
Application 12/765,077
Appellants' other arguments have been considered but are not deemed
persuasive of error.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is summarily affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed proforma.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8