Ex Parte van der Sluis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2019

14534766 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/534,766 11/06/2014
5073 7590
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
2001 ROSS A VENUE
SUITE 900
DALLAS, TX 75201-2980
02/19/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter Willem van der Sluis
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.
076263.0593 6761
EXAMINER
LOWE, MICHAELS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2019 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER WILLEM VAN DER SLUIS,
BRAD A. SCHALLER, KENT B. TOEPFER, and
ROBERT J. GODFREY
Appeal2017-009630
Application 14/534,766
Technology Center 3600
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2017-009630
Application 14/534,766
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a robotic arm with double grabber, such as
for the milking of livestock. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A robotic attacher, comprising:
a main arm suspended from a rail;
a supplemental arm coupled to the main arm; and
a gripping portion coupled to an extension of the
supplemental arm and comprising a first grabber positioned side-
by-side with a second grabber;
the first grabber comprising:
a first magnet stored in a first housing and operable
to contact a first teat cup; and
a first air cylinder coupled to the first magnet and
operable to extend the first magnet such that the first
magnet contacts the first teat cup, and to retract the first
magnet such that the first magnet releases the first teat cup;
the second grabber comprising:
a second magnet stored in a second housing and
operable to contact a second teat cup; and
a second air cylinder coupled to the second magnet
and operable to extend the second magnet such that the
second magnet contacts the second teat cup, and to retract
the second magnet such that the second magnet releases
the teat cup.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Massland
Ando
Snijders
Delaval
WO 98/05201
JP 10-156776 A
NL 1009632
WO 2010/060693 Al
2
Feb. 12, 1998
June 16, 1998
Jan. 17,2000
June 3, 2010
Appeal2017-009630
Application 14/534,766
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Delaval, Snijders, and Ando.
Claims 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Delaval, Snijders, Ando, and Maasland.
OPINION
Claims 1-4
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1--4 together. We select
claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that the milking system of Dela val teaches most
of the features of claim 1 including a gripping portion with first and second
grabbers, where the grabbers include a magnet for contacting a teat cup.
Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that "Dela val also teaches the magnetic
teat grabbing gripper may be moved via air cylinders." Id.
The Examiner finds that "Ando teaches ... a gripper ... moving a
magnet (generally 5) via air cylinder (generally 3) to reliably attach and
detach tools to the gripper (generally 1)." Id. The Examiner then
determines that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to have tried modifying
Dela val as claimed in order to achieve the predictable result of using known
reliable mounting and gripping arrangements to perform its operation." Id.
Relevant to Appellants' arguments, claim 1 requires "a first air
cylinder coupled to the first magnet and operable to extend the first magnet
such that the first magnet contacts the first teat cup, and to retract the first
magnet such that the first magnet releases the first teat cup."
3
Appeal2017-009630
Application 14/534,766
Among other things, Appellants argue that though Ando teaches a
piston 3, it is not an air cylinder. Appeal Br. 15. The Examiner responds
that "it would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that item 3 is
referring [to] an air cylinder." Ans. 2. Ando teaches that the piston 3 is
positioned in air chamber 11 and that its position is controlled by air ports
19a/19b. Ando ,r 12. Though piston 3 may not be an air cylinder it is
certainly part of an air cylinder. Thus, we are not informed of error in the
Examiner's rejection.
As noted above, the Examiner finds that "Delaval also teaches the
magnetic teat grabbing gripper may be moved via air cylinders." Final Act.
3. The Examiner further explains that "Dela val page 7, line 31 ... state[ s]
that the gripper (140) may be moved by pneumatic or vacuum cylinders
(page 8 lines 31-35 teaches the gripper may use an electromagnet as well)."
Ans. 4. Though not stated, the Examiner appears to be implying that
Delaval teaches an "air cylinder coupled to the first magnet and operable to
extend [ and retract] the first magnet" as required by claim 1.
After stating that the gripper means 140 can hold, release and retrieve
teat cups, Dela val states "other means may be used for this task ( e.g.
pneumatic or vacuum cylinders)." Delaval 7:30-31; see also Appeal Br. 18.
Later, while talking about different methods of gripping teat cups, Delaval
teaches that "the gripper means 140 may include an electromagnetic means."
Delaval 8:32-33.
Delaval's teachings concerning the pneumatic or vacuum cylinders
and their relationship to other gripping methods are unclear. Thus, we do
not agree with the Examiner that Delaval teaches an "air cylinder coupled to
the first magnet and operable to extend [ and retract] the first magnet" as
4
Appeal2017-009630
Application 14/534,766
implied. However, in view of the teachings of Ando, such findings are not
necessary for us to sustain the rejection.
Appellants also argue that Ando does not teach a "grabber," or
"'extend[ing]' or 'retract[ing]' the 'first magnet' to 'contact' or 'release' a
'first teat cup"' or the similar requirement of a second magnet. Appeal Br.
16. We first note that Appellants are arguing Ando individually, where the
portion of the rejection argued is based on the combination of Dela val and
Ando. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted)
( explaining that obviousness must be considered in light of "what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art"). For example, the Examiner relies on Delaval for
teaching a grabber and teat cups. Final Act. 3. Further, as discussed above,
and found by the Examiner, Ando teaches an air cylinder which controls a
magnet to extend or retract to engage/disengage a tool. Id. Appellants do
not identify error in these findings or the reasons to combine these and other
teachings. For these reasons, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's
rejection.
Appellants argue that the rejection is improper because "a translation
of the full-text" of Ando is not provided by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 17
(citing MPEP § 706.02). Appellants' argument is moot however as they
later admit that a translation was provided. Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants then
argue that the machine translation is incomprehensible. Id. at 4. This
argument is both unconvincing attorney argument and untimely. See In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) ("Attorney's argument in a
5
Appeal2017-009630
Application 14/534,766
brief cannot take the place of evidence."); see 37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv),
41.41(b)(2); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010)
(informative). Thus, Appellants' argument does not inform us or error in the
Examiner's rejection.
For all of these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1--4.
Claims 5-20
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and includes "wherein the first grabber
is operable to tilt downward independently of the second grabber in
conjunction with the second grabber attaching the second teat cup to a teat of
a dairy livestock." Dependent claims 7-10 and independent claim 11
include similar limitations to claim 5.
Concerning claims 5-20, the Examiner finds: "Delaval teaches ...
moving to match a determined spatial orientation. Maasland (generally
figures 5, 7 ,8) teaches individual rotating/tilting via air cylinders as well as
arms depending from a rail." Final Act. 4. The Examiner then determines
that "[i]t would have been obvious to ... modify[] Delaval as claimed or
having any other known actuation, movement and attachment profile to meet
its stated purpose of connecting with cup magazines and teats at any
orientation and spatial location (bottom page 9 to top of page 11,etc.)." Id.
at 4--5.
Appellants argue that Delaval teaches away from combination with
Maasland to achieve independent control of separate grabbers on the same
arm and that such a modification would render Delaval inoperable for its
intended purpose. Appeal Br. 18-22.
6
Appeal2017-009630
Application 14/534,766
As noted by Appellants, the focus of Dela val is "identifying and
maintaining a particular horizontal level for each of the teat cups in relation
to each other as arranged in the gripper means in order to accurately attach
the teat cups to the teats of a particular dairy animal in view of the spatial
characteristics of the animal in question." Id. at 19-20. The Examiner
attempts to overly simplify the focus of Dela val to "mov[ing] teat cups back
and forth for milking." Ans. 4.
In discussing the prior art, Delaval states that "multi-grippers may be
difficult/inefficient to employ," (Delaval 2:27-28) and that it is "desirable to
avoid the complex structure of a multi-teat cup carrier wherein the level of
each teat cup is individually controllable" (id. at 2:29-31 ). Delaval's
invention then addresses this concern with a system designed to maintain
adjacent teat cups in particular horizontal relationships. See Appeal Br. 19-
21 (citing e.g., Delaval 4:20-31, 12:1-27, Figs. 4a-5). For this reason, we
agree with Appellants that Delaval both teaches away from individual tilt
control of adjacent teat cup carriers and would render Delaval inoperable for
its intended purpose if modified in the manner proposed.
The Examiner attempts to counter Appellants' arguments by stating
that "Delaval in page 9, lines 12 & 14 teaches at least some type of
individual control of the grippers." Ans. 4.
Delaval page 9, lines 9-14 states:
Although the gripper means 140 may be configured to simulta-
neously hold two or more teat cups (such as Cl and C2 in Figure
2), the gripper means 140 is adapted to grip and remove each teat
cup separately from the teat cup magazine 120. Preferably, the
gripper means 140 is likewise adapted to release the teat cups
separately after having been attached to the intended teats.
7
Appeal2017-009630
Application 14/534,766
Though Delaval teaches holding and releasing each teat cup
individually, this section does not support the Examiner's position that
Delaval teaches or suggests individual control as required by claims 5-20.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4 is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 5-20 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8