Ex Parte KrapfDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201712306401 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation