Ex Parte Körmoci et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 2018

12518827 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/518,827 109973 7590 Bejin Bieneman PLC 2000 Town Center Suite 800 Southfield, MI 48075 06/27/2011 04/03/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jtirgen Kormoci 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. 66835-0082 8302 EXAMINER CAPOZZI, CHARLES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1717 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/03/2018 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): docket@b2iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JURGEN KORMOCI and VASSILI OS SOUGIOL T ZIS Appeal 2017-004531 Application 12/518,827 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Applicants (hereinafter "Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Primary Examiner's fmal decision to reject claims 15-17, 19-22, 24, and25. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affrrm. 1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as "Durr Systems GmbH" (Appeal Brief filed April 26, 2016, hereinafter "Appeal Br.," 2). 2 Appeal Br. 5-1 O; Reply Brief filed January 27, 2017, hereinafter "Reply Br.," 1-3; Final Office Action entered December 3, 2015, hereinafter "Final Act.," 3-13; Examiner's Answer enteredNovember28, 2016, hereinafter "Ans.," 2-16. Appeal 2017-004531 Application 12/518,827 I. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a coating plant for coating workpieces, such as vehicle bodies, in a serial manner (Specification filed June 11, 2009, hereinafter"Spec.,"if 1). Figure 1 is illustrative and is reproduced from the application as follows: I \ // \ <' I 1 l i . l I \t ~ v !f i !! ,.Jt..-,-:-~{~-~~---.-.:L .. -.. ~--~:;::~;~-ll-. \j ~ i ii "./lÂ·- / ij ~ 7 .::;~1~L:::::::::i~~;~}f':\:Â·-----:Â·)~!:~j-~~--Â·-~ .,._ :J I I \ .... )( . ,,,.......----t> l -- \:r, , / \ tf, "!. I 12 Â·Â·-::::, ' '-. i â€¢ Â·-----~- /1 1r1:? ~:,;,:::3-- ~ Â·,\:r-,~_::f f~~::~Â·. --~:~:~;:::~-- ~ 1 s ...... ---:.:i.-1._ i- \V I;' \!X \ 1 [Â·~?r~-A 14--:ti - ~ -~, __ _ \ }I \ J_.z7j" !: !(,, 'fi5"1{5~~ \ ./ -1' -\\t---8 -- ir""~':::: .... Ftf'~~,,,__ .. , ........... ')- ~ ... i, â€¢â€¢ __ -_::.:..:_-':~:-~:::::::::::::=:==~ :::::::::::::::::::::,,.-111Â·-------Â·Â·~; --1rÂ§ r--\-- \ ;t::Â·--------------------Â·------------ :11 9~/ Â·-----------Â· l 1~' ~ii\ t. J ,. Figure 1 above shows a cross-sectional view of a spray painting booth 1 provided with four painting robots 6, 7 and 6', 7' (not shown in Fig. 1) mounted in a stationary manner on a gantry structure for painting vehicle bodies 2 transported by a floor conveyor 4, wherein the gantry structure consists of: two longitudinal beams 12 incorporated into side walls 5, 5' or mounted on the outer faces of the side walls 5, 5' and each rest on two supports 11 spaced apart in the conveying direction; and two cross-support members 13 (not shown in Fig. 1) fixedly interconnecting the two longitudinal beams 12 (id. if ii 9, 19-21). 2 Appeal 2017-004531 Application 12/518,827 Representative claim 15 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 11 ), with key limitations emphasized, as follows: 15. A coating plant for the series coating of workpieces, the coating plant including a spray booth through which a conveyor transports the workpieces on a conveying path parallel to two side walls included in the spray booth; the coating plant having a gantry structure that includes: at least two vertical supports which are spaced apart from each other lengthwise of the conveying, and at least one longitudinal beam which interconnects said vertical supports substantially parallel to the conveying path, the at least one longitudinal beam being arranged at a height extending beyond an upper face of the workpieces in the spray booth, wherein the at least two vertical supports and the at least one longitudinal beam are arranged on an outer face of one of the side walls of the spray booth, further wherein the outer face faces an exterior of the spray booth, and at least one cross support member arranged across the conveying path and fixedly connected to the at least one longitudinal beam; wherein the coating plant includes at least one robot having a base body mounted on the gantry structure and a multi- axis arm arrangement supported by the base body and also a tooi and further wherein the base body of the at least one robot is secured in a stationary manner to the at least one longitudinal beam of the gantry structure. 3 Appeal 2017-004531 Application 12/518,827 II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL On appeal, the Examiner maintains several rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as follows: A. Claims 15-17 and 19-21 as unpatentable over Vecellio, 3 Clifford et al. 4 (hereinafter "Clifford"), and Williams; 5 B. Claim 22 as unpatentable over Vecellio, Clifford, Williams, and Kuronaga et al. 6 (hereinafter "Kuronaga"); C. Claim 24 as unpatentable over Vecellio, Clifford, Williams, and Schoenberg et al. 7 (hereinafter "Schoenberg"); and D. Claim 25 as unpatentable over Vecellio, Clifford, Williams, Ramseier et al. 8 (hereinafter "Ramseier"), and Schoenberg. (Ans. 2-16; Final Act. 3-13.) III. DISCUSSION The Appellants' arguments against all four rejections focus only on claim 15 (Appeal Br. 5-10). Therefore, we confme our discussion to claim 15. Consistent with 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), all other claims on appeal stand or fall with claim 15. The Examiner fmds that Vecellio describes a painting system including every limitation recited in claim 15 except: ( 1) "Vecellio does not explicitly show each base 34 (base body) of stationary robots 26, 28, 30, and 32 disposed above the upper surface of automobile body 20 on a gantry 3 US 4,532, 148, issued July 30, 1985. 4 US 2004/0107900 Al, published June 10, 2004. 5 US 4,850,382, issued July 25, 1989. 6 US 4, 768,462, issued September 6, 1988. 7 US 4,421,800, issuedDecember20, 1983. 8 US 4,715,314,issuedDecember29, 1987. 4 Appeal 2017-004531 Application 12/518,827 structure [as shown in Figs. 1-2]"; and (2) Vecellio does not "teach[] the vertical supports and longitudinal beams arranged on an outer face of side walls of a spray booth facing an exterior of the spray booth" (Ans. 2-5; holding added). Regarding difference (1 ), the Examiner relies on Clifford for its disclosure that elevating the robots on a gantry structure provides various advantages and concludes from this fmding that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have elevated Vecellio's stationary robots on a gantry structure for the advantages disclosed in Clifford (id. at 3-5). Regarding difference (2), the Examiner relies on Williams's teachings and concludes that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted "to arrange the vertical supports and longitudinal beams on the exterior walls of the spray booth in the previous art combination above, as taught by Williams, for the benefit of optimizing floor space and improving efficiency of air circulating systems" (id. at 5---6). The Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's fmdings and analysis with respect to difference (2). Rather, the Appellants focus their arguments on difference (1 ). Specifically, the Appellants contend thatthe rejection fails to account for the disputed limitations highlighted above in reproduced claim 15, because the applied prior art references do not "disclose-let alone teach or suggest-mounting a base body of a robot on a gantry structure 'wherein the base body of the at least one robot is secured in a stationary manner to the at least one longitudinal beam of the gantry structure' [as recited in the claim]" (Appeal Br. 5). The Appellants argue that both Clifford and Williams disclose moveable robots, and, therefore, "the [prior art] combination would yield either a stationary robot mounted on the floor (i.e., Vecellio), or, a robot that is movable on a rail (i.e., Clifford or 5 Appeal 2017-004531 Application 12/518,827 Williams)" (id. at6). AccordingtotheAppellants, "Vecellio ... teaches that if robots are removed from the floor and mounted to a beam (i.e., a horizontal track), they ought not be stationary" because "making them stationary would defeat Vecellio' s very purpose for mounting them to a beam in the first place"-i.e., "Vecellio's stated objective of eliminating two of the robots could not be accomplished" (id. at 6-7). The Appellants submit that, therefore, the Examiner's rejection fails to articulate a sufficient reason for combining the references in the manner claimed by the Appellants and fails to consider the prior art teachings as a whole (id. at 7-8). The Appellants' arguments fail to reveal any reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. In re Jung, 637F.3d1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Vecellio's Figure 1 is reproduced as follows: j?/q.J v Vecellio's Figure 1 above depicts a plan view of a robot painting system 10 in which a paint module 12 (spray booth) has, inter alia: an entrance end 14 and an exit end 16; a track 18 along which an automobile body 20 is conveyed into and out of the paint module 12 and painted while in a stationary position by four painting robots 26, 28, 30, 32; and laterally 6 Appeal 2017-004531 Application 12/518,827 spaced side walls 13, 13' (Vecellio, col. 2, 1. 63---col. 3, 1. 20). The Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's fmding (Ans. 3) that Vecellio's robots 26, 28, 20, and 32 have bases that are stationary (Appeal Br. 6) ("At best, the [prior art] combination would yield either a stationary robot mounted on the floor (i.e., Vecellio), or .... "). As an alternative embodiment, Vecellio teaches that "although four robots are shown being used with the robot paint system 10 [of Figure 1], the entire automobile body 20 could be painted using two robots only" (Vecellio, col. 5, ll. 43-36). In such an embodiment in which only two robots are used, Vecellio teaches that the front one-half of the automobile body 20 would be painted by the robots 28, 30 and then"[ a ]fterwards, the robots 28 and 30 could be repositioned along a horizontal track or the like to the positions normally occupied by the robots 26 and 32 to paint the rear one-half of the automobile body 20" (id. at col. 5, ll. 50-54) Clifford discloses a robotic painting system for painting external surfaces of vehicle bodies (Clifford if 2). Clifford's Figure 1 is reproduced as follows: F!G.1 7 Appeal 2017-004531 Application 12/518,827 Clifford's Figure 1 above depicts an elevated rail apparatus 10 (i.e., a gantry structure) including, inter alia: a pair of frame rails 11 extending in a horizontal direction and spaced apart a predetermined distance on opposite sides of an axis 12 defming a path of travel for objects to be painted; and cross support members 14 that cooperate with the frame rails 11, legs 13, and the booth floor to form a modular, supporting rigid box frame structure (id. if 19). Clifford further teaches that frame rails 11 each have at least one mounting base 15, which is adapted to retain a painting device 16, that moves along the rail permitting painting of the top and/ or side of a vehicle body (id. if 20; Abstract; Fig. 1 ). According to Clifford, the elevated rail apparatus 10 provides various advantages including: reducing costs associated with adding support steel to the paint booth to support the cantilever loads of traditional prior art floor-mounted robot rails; allowing many typical maintenance components such as linear axis drive components and cable and hose carriers to be placed out of the area where paint overs pray would typically accumulate, thereby lowering the cost for protective covers and seals; providing unobstructed viewing into the booth and allowing access doors in the side walls; maintaining cleaner robots requiring less maintenance and having better transfer efficiency of the paint to the vehicle body; allowing the use of multiple robots on the same frame rail 11 having the capability to paint various size vehicle bodies; and eliminating human safety issues associated with placing traditional prior art robots in proximity of manual spray zones (id. iii! 26, 26, 31, 36). Similarly, Williams discloses a booth for cleaning a vehicle body to be painted by using high pressure water sprayed from a nozzle associated 8 Appeal 2017-004531 Application 12/518,827 with a robot (Williams, Abstract; col. 1, 11. 5-18). Specifically, Williams discloses the robots above the booth to reduce the booth's interior volume, thereby resulting in savings of floor space and enabling the use of smaller air makeup and circulating system for the booth (id. at col. 4, ll. 9-14). The collective teachings in the prior art references as a whole amply support the Examiner's conclusion (Ans. 4---6, 10-11) that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to implement a gantry structure as disclosed in Clifford, as further modified by Williams, in order to realize all the advantages and benefits explicitly disclosed in Clifford and Williams. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill."). Although the Appellants are correct that both Clifford and Williams teach robots having bases that are moveable on the rails on which they are retained (Appeal Br. 6), Vecellio discloses robots having bases 34 that are stationary, as acknowledged by the Appellants (id.; Vecellio, col. 3, 11. 36- 50). Considering the prior art references collectively, we discern no reversible error in the Examiner's position that the combined teachings would have suggested robots having stationary bases placed on the elevated rail described in Clifford. In re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 425(CCPA1981) (nonobviousness cannot be established merely by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on the collective teachings of multiple prior art references). 9 Appeal 2017-004531 Application 12/518,827 Vecellio' s teachings concerning an alternative embodiment in which the robots are moveable does not negate the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. As we found above, Vecellio teaches moveable robots on a horizontal track in an alternative embodiment in order to allow a reduction in thenumberofrobots(Vecellio, col. 5,11. 43-57). Apersonhaving ordinary skill in the art would not be constrained to this particular embodiment featuring robots having moveable bases in which the goal is to reduce the number of robots that would be required. Thus, Vecellio' s teachings regarding this alternative embodiment articulates nothing more than a preference for reducing the number of robots that would be required. In re Fulton, 391F.3d1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For these reasons and those given by the Examiner, we uphold the Examiner's rejections. IV. SUMMARY Rejections A through Dare sustained. Therefore, the Examiner's fmal decision to reject claims 15-17, 19-22, 24, and25 is affrrmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 10