Ex Parte Krapf

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

12306401 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
2178-1113 3278
EXAMINER
LAUGHLIN, NATHAN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/306,401 12/23/2008
10800 7590 01/31/2017
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Reiner Krapf
01/31/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REINER KRAPF
Appeal 2016-001951
Application 12/306,401
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 15, 19, 21, and 23—28. Appeal Brief Corrected Section
2-4 (filed April 21, 2015). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to “a machine tool monitoring device
having a detection unit for detecting an application situation in a machine
tool.” Abstract.
Appeal 2016-001951
Application 12/306,401
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
15. A machine tool monitoring device, comprising:
a control unit arranged and configured to control the
machine tool monitoring device;
a detection unit arranged and configured to communicate
with the control unit and to detect a use situation in a machine
tool, the detection unit comprising a plurality of sensors arranged
above the machine tool,
wherein each of the plurality of sensors is configured to
measure a vertical distance parameter,
wherein the vertical distance parameter is a vertical
distance between the plurality of sensors and a working plane of
the machine tool,
wherein the vertical distance parameters measured
simultaneously by the plurality of sensors form one set of vertical
distance parameters, and
wherein the detection unit is configured to detect the use
situation on the basis of an altitude difference between any of the
vertical distance parameters within the set of vertical distance
parameters,
wherein the detection unit determines at least two
monitoring areas for monitoring the use situation of the machine
tool,
wherein at least one of the at least two monitoring areas is
assigned to a warning mode of the machine tool, and
wherein at least one monitoring area is circular in shape
and the at least two monitoring areas are laterally spaced apart
and laterally spaced from a blade of the machine tool;
an arithmetic unit arranged and configured to
communicate with the control unit and to further detect the use
situation, wherein the arithmetic unit transmits a warning signal
to the control unit during the warning mode, wherein the control
unit outputs an acoustic signal to warn an operator of the machine
tool in response to warning signal, and wherein.
2
Appeal 2016-001951
Application 12/306,401
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 15, 19, 21, and 23—27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Rejection 2.1
Claims 15, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 26—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Uneyama (US 7,084,779 B2; August 1,
2006), Motsenbocker (US 7,335,071 Bl; February 26, 2008), O’Banion (US
7,373,863 B2; May 20, 2008), and Dils (US 2004/0194594 Al; October 7,
2004). Final Rejection 3.2
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Uneyama, Motsenbocker, O’Banion, Dils, and Uchikawa
(US 6,330,553 Bl; December 11, 2001). Final Rejection 10.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellant and the
Examiner, we refer to the Final Rejection (mailed May 16, 2014), the
Appeal Brief (filed February 13, 2015), the Supplemental Appeal Brief
(filed April 21, 2015), the Answer (mailed October 7, 2015), and the Reply
Brief (filed December 7, 2015) for the respective details. We have
1 This rejection appears to have been issued in response to the final two
words of claim 15, which are “and wherein.” See claim 15 above and Final
Rejection 2. Neither the Examiner nor the Appellant reference this rejection
in the Answer or the Briefs. Accordingly, this rejection is summarily
affirmed.
2 The Final Rejection indicates claims 15, 19-24, and 26—29 are rejected.
We note that claims 20, 22, and 29 were previously canceled in amendments
filed on the following dates: May 4, 2012 (claim 29); April 15, 2013 (claim
22); and January 21, 2014 (claim 20). We hold this as a harmless error.
3
Appeal 2016-001951
Application 12/306,401
considered in this decision only arguments Appellant actually raised in the
Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Claim 15
Appellant argues Examiner error because “[t]he cited passage[ of
O’Banion] discloses a plurality of ultrasound emitters 230 and receives 232,
but fails to disclose that a set of simultaneously measured vertical distance
parameters are generated.” Reply Brief 3 (citing O’Banion 18:19—25).
Appellant additionally contends that:
O’Banion fails to disclose any mechanism for generating a set of
simultaneously measured vertical distance parameters using the
disclosed ultrasound sensor panel 236. Instead, the ultrasound
sensor panel 236 generates a single output that is indicative of
the height.
Reply Brief 5—A (citing O’Banion 18:37-42).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that:
O’Banion teaches generating a set of simultaneously measured
vertical distance parameters (col. 18 lines 19-25). O’Banion
teaches that multiple emitters and receivers (elements 230, 232)
are positioned above a tool/blade (fig. 23a) and ultrasonic waves
are emitted down thereby creating vertical parameters.
4
Appeal 2016-001951
Application 12/306,401
Answer 3.
O’Banion’s Figure 23a is reproduced below:
Figure 23a “is a perspective view of a sensing mechanism” (O’Banion 4:34—
37) in which “[ujltrasound sensor panel 236 is generally comprised of a
plurality of ultrasound emitters 230 and receivers 232 positioned
therealong.” O’Banion 18:23—25.
Furthermore:
[a]s the workpiece 218 is moved toward the saw blade 208,
ultrasonic emitters 230 send out an ultrasonic signal which is
echoed off of the workpiece 218 and saw blade 208 and
redirected toward receivers 232. Receivers 232, monitor the
ultrasonic signals to determine a profile, or height, of the
workpiece 218 that is being cut. A change in the thickness, which
may be caused by a human extremity, changes the signal that is
received by the receivers 232.
O’Banion 18:32—39 (emphasis added). Thus, O’Banion’s plurality of
emitters and receivers determines a simultaneous profile of heights beneath
the length of ultrasound sensor panel 236. We disagree with Appellant’s
construction of O’Banion, in which only one emitter/receiver combination
5
Appeal 2016-001951
Application 12/306,401
would be needed to generate “a single output that is indicative of the height”
at a single point in the vicinity of saw blade 208; such a single output would
be insufficient to generate a profile of the workpiece. See Reply Brief 2—3.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 15, as well as independent claim 28 commensurate in
scope, and claims 19 and 23—27 not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 10.
Claim 21
Appellant argues Examiner error because “Uneyama fails to disclose
that the two monitoring areas are ‘each assigned to a different operating
mode of the machine tool,’ as required by claim 21.” Appeal Brief 10.
Appellant contends that “when determining if the ‘gentle braking’ or the
‘rapid braking’ should be applied, Uneyama relies on the data from both
radars 46, 47; thus, in Uneyama both monitoring areas are assigned to the
same operating mode.” Appeal Brief 10. We are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that “as shown in
Uneyama based on a specific distance if a user’s extremity is present a
gentle breaking force is applied (col. 2 lines 30-35, fig. 13 steps s9-sl 1, fig.
12 - dl to d2) while if the distance is a second distance from the blade a
rapid breaking force is applied.” Answer 5. The Examiner correctly finds
Uneyama teaches “there are two separate monitoring area[s] (in this
example, area 1 is 6-12 inches away from the blade and area 2 is 6 inches or
less) and that each area has a different operating (braking) mode.” Answer
5. Appellant fails to address and challenge the Examiner’s finding (see
Reply Brief 2-4), and Appellant’s argument regarding the radars is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim (Appeal Brief 10).
6
Appeal 2016-001951
Application 12/306,401
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
21.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 19, 21, and 23—28.
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
7