Ex Parte Vedsted et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2012

12207575 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte LARS VEDSTED and SOREN VEDSTED __________ Appeal 2011-009602 Application 12/207,575 Technology Center 3600 __________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an apparatus for cleaning a peeling machine and to a peeling machine including a cleaning tool. The Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated or obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2011-009602 Application 12/207,575 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-7 and 14-18 are on appeal (App. Br. 3). 1 We will focus on claim 1, which reads as follows: 1. Apparatus for cleaning the peeling section of a roller-type peeling machine having peeling channels formed by a plurality of parallel, overlapping rollers, comprising: an x-y robot disposed above a peeling section of a peeling machine and having a cleaning tool as an end effector translatable along x and y axes defining a working envelope encompassing the peeling section; a controller coupled to the robot to move the cleaning tool along a predetermined cleaning path within the working envelope to clean the peeling section. Claims 1-5 and 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Skrmetta (US 6,435,959 B1, Aug. 20, 2002) (Ans. 4). Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Skrmetta in view of Lomerson, Jr. et al. (US 6,626,630 B1, Sep. 30, 2003) (Ans. 5). Claims 7 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Skrmetta in view of Roach et al. (US 6,627,446 B1, Sep. 30, 2003) (Ans. 6). ANTICIPATION The Examiner finds that Skrmetta discloses an apparatus comprising: an x-y robot - at 50-74, disposed above the peeling section - see at 50,56,58, of the peeling machine - see figures 1-2, and having a cleaning tool - at 50,56,70,72, a[s] an end effector - see item 50 at the end of the robot in figure 1, translatable along x and y axes - see figures 1-2 where items 50,56 move in an x 1 Claims 8-13 are also pending but have been withdrawn from consideration (App. Br. 3). Appeal 2011-009602 Application 12/207,575 3 direction and items 70-72 due to the rotation of item 72 can move in both x and y directions, [and] a controller coupled to the robot to move the cleaning tool along a predetermined cleaning path within the working envelope to clean the peeling section. (Ans. 4.) Appellants argue that “Skrmetta does not disclose an x-y robot having a cleaning tool as an end effector that is translatable along x and y axes” (App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted)). We agree. In particular, we agree with Appellants that it was unreasonable for the Examiner to consider crank 70 and disk 72 part of the cleaning tool as an end effector. Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that Skrmetta teaches a cleaning tool as an end effector translatable along x and y axes. (Id. at 6-8.) In addition, we agree with Appellants that the x and y axes, as defined by the Examiner (the y axis being vertical (Ans. 8)), does not define a working envelope encompassing the peeling section (App. Br. 8). Stated differently, the Examiner defines Skrmetta’s water pipes 50 as the end effector (Ans. 4). Skrmetta suggests that crank 70 functions to move water pipes 50 (e.g., the end effector) back and forth, i.e. along an x-axis (Skrmetta, col. 5, ll. 36-41; id. at ll. 54-55 (“The distance to which the water conduits 50 travels can be as little as 6-7” in one direction”); see also Ans. 4 (element 50 “move[s] in an x direction”)). Thus, while the crank 70 is rotatable along a y-axis, as the Examiner suggests, this rotation does not translate to movement of the end effector in both an x and y axis as required by Appellants’ claimed invention. We therefore reverse the anticipation rejection. Appeal 2011-009602 Application 12/207,575 4 OBVIOUSNESS In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner relies on Lomerson for disclosing toothed belts (Ans. 6). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to take the device of Skrmetta and add the toothed belt drive assembly of Lomerson, so as to allow for the movement of the robot to be accurately controlled” (id.). In rejecting claims 7 and 18, the Examiner relies on Roach for disclosing an x-axis assembly - at 33, having a first motor . . . , and a first lead screw - at 41,rotated by the first motor and defining the x axis and a first nut - at 38, mounted on the first lead screw - see figure 1 and to which the tool - at 35, is connected for movement along the x-axis - see figure 1, and a y-axis assembly - at 13,30, having a second motor . . . , and a second lead screw - at 21,31, rotated by the second motor and defining the y axis and a second nut - see for example at 20,30, mounted on the second lead screw and to which the x-axis assembly is connected for movement along the y-axis - see figure 1. (Id. at 6-7.) The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to take the device of Skrmetta and add the lead screw robot of Roach et al., so as to accurately control the position of the robot during use” (id. at 7). We acknowledge that both Lomerson and Roach are directed to two axes systems. However, the Examiner merely relies on them to teach toothed belts, as recited in claim 6, and a lead screw robot, as recited in claims 7 and 18 (id. at 6-7 & 8-9). The Examiner does not adequately explain how Lomerson or Roach suggest modifying Skrmetta to provide a cleaning tool as an end effector translatable along the x and y axes, as recited in the claims on which claims 6, 7, and 18 depend. Thus, the Examiner has Appeal 2011-009602 Application 12/207,575 5 not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness. We therefore reverse the obviousness rejections. REVERSED cdc