ABB Schweiz AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 27, 2020

2020005089 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2020)

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.
16/315,884 01/07/2019 Daniel Lundbäck 04190-P0342A 7222
137670 7590 11/27/2020
ABB - Whitmyer IP Group LLC
600 Summer Street
Stamford, CT 06901
EXAMINER
MACARTHUR, VICTOR L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3658
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2020 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 DANIEL LUNDBÄCK

Appeal 2020-005089
Application 16/315,884
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3,
5–10, and 12–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We REVERSE.2

1 The Appellant is the “applicant” as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (e.g., “the
inventor or all of the joint inventors”). “The real party in interest is ABB
Schweiz AG.” (Appeal Br. 2.)
2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). An oral
(telephonic) hearing was held on November 19, 2020.
Appeal 2020-005089
Application 16/315,884

2
THE APPELLANT’S INVENTION
The Appellant’s invention “relates to parallel kinematics robots with
integrated transmissions.” (Spec. ¶ 1.) “The invention is based on the
realization that when a plurality of gear cavities being part of a parallel
kinematics robot is included in a base consisting of one piece, interfaces that
negatively affect the accuracy of the robot are omitted.” (Id. ¶ 7.) For
example, “a base with three gear cavities” could be “made of cast-iron by
casting,” and, if so, it would “consist[] of one piece in homogeneous
material, the three gear cavities being integral parts of this one piece.” (Id.
¶ 21, reference numerals omitted.)
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
(italics and bolded bracketed text added)

1. A base for a parallel kinematics robot, the base
comprising:
[(1)] a plurality of gear cavities, [(2)] each gear cavity
comprising a first bearing seat configured to receive an output
shaft bearing and align said output shaft bearing along a first
axis, each gear cavity further comprising a second bearing seat
configured to receive an intermediate shaft bearing and align
said intermediate shaft bearing along a second axis which is
different from said first axis, [(3)] wherein the base consists of
one piece in homogeneous material.
REFERENCES
Gorman US 4,636,138 Jan. 13, 1987
Bunsendal US 2011/0277581 A1 Nov. 17, 2011
Mihara US 2014/0360306 A1 Dec. 11, 2014
Eliasson WO 2014/029448 A1 Feb. 27, 2014
Appeal 2020-005089
Application 16/315,884

3
REJECTIONS3
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–8, 10, and 12–15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Eliasson, Gorman, and Bunsendal. (Final
Action 3.)
The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Eliasson, Gorman, Bunsendal, and Mihara. (Final Action 5.)
OBVIOUSNESS
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
(KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).) However, this
reasoning, alone, does not establish obviousness. When relying upon a
combination of prior art elements to establish obviousness, it must also be
shown that said combination satisfies “all limitations in [the] claim.”
(CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003).)
“[The] combination of the prior art, even if supported by a motivation to
combine,” must “disclose all the limitations of the claims.” (Id.).
SUMMARY
The Appellant argues that the Examiner does not sufficiently show
that the proposed combination of the prior art satisfies all of the limitations
of the claims on appeal. (See, e.g., Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 8–9.) We
are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument.

3 Rejections of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (see Final Action 2) and
35 U.S.C § 103 (see id. at 4) were “overcome by cancellation of the claim”
(Advisory Action 1).
Appeal 2020-005089
Application 16/315,884

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 8 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest of
the claims on appeal depending therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Independent claim 1 sets forth a “base” for a “robot,” and independent
claim 8 sets forth a “robot” comprising a “base.” (Id.)
Independent claims 1 and 8 contain three limitations: (1) the base
must comprise “a plurality of gear cavities,” (2) each gear cavity must have
two “bearing seat[s],” and (3) the base must “consist[] of one piece in
homogeneous material.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
The Examiner relies upon Eliasson to disclose limitation (1), namely a
base comprising a plurality of gear cavities. (Final Action 3.) Eliasson
discloses a delta robot 10 which is shown in our annotated version of
Eliasson’s Figure 2, below.

Appeal 2020-005089
Application 16/315,884

5
The above drawing shows that Eliasson’s delta robot has “three drive
arms 20,” and “[e]ach drive arm 20 is driven by a servo motor through a
gearbox.” (Eliasson p1:6–12.) In other words, as labeled in the above
drawing, Eliasson’s illustrated delta robot has three gearboxes. As also
labeled in the above drawing, the illustrated delta robot has what the
Examiner calls a “center portion connecting” the three gearboxes.
(Answer 9.)
Thus, Eliasson discloses a base (the gearboxes in conjunction with the
connecting center portion) comprising a plurality of gear cavities (the
interior compartments of the gearboxes) that satisfies limitation (1).
However, as acknowledged by the Examiner, Eliasson “does not depict or
describe the internal construction of the gearbox drives” (Final Action 3) and
Eliasson is not “definitive” as to how the gearboxes are structurally
connected to the center portion (Answer 3).
The Examiner relies upon Gorman to teach limitation (2), namely
each gear cavity having two bearing seats. (See Final Action 3.) Gorman
discloses a drive unit in which a casing 70 has an interior compartment and
accommodates two shaft bearings. (See Gorman c5:61–c6:13, Figs. 1,
5, 15.) In the Examiner’s proposed combination of the prior art, the
“internal construction[s]” of Eliasson’s gearboxes are modified, in view of
Gorman, to have two bearing seats. (See id.)
For the purposes of this appeal, we can assume that the Examiner’s
proposed combination of Eliasson and Gorman results in a base that satisfies
limitation (1) and limitation (2). More specifically, we can assume that,
when Eliasson is modified in view of Gorman, the interior compartment of
Appeal 2020-005089
Application 16/315,884

6
each of Eliasson’s gearboxes (i.e., each gear cavity) is provided with two
bearing seats.
The Examiner relies upon Bunsendal to teach limitation (3), namely a
base consisting of one piece in homogenous material. Bunsendal discloses a
delta robot which is depicted in Figure 1, below.

The above drawing “shows a perspective view of a delta robot” (Bunsendal
¶ 72) having a “housing 1,” “three drives 2,” and three “upper arm[s] 3” (id.
¶ 76). Bunsendal discloses that the three drives 2 are “installed” in the
housing 1 (id.) and this installation is schematically shown in the above
drawing by dashed lines outlining roughly oval/rectangular shapes.
According to the Examiner, Bunsendal’s Figure 1, alone, supports a
finding that “when multiple drives are used in a delta robot the drive
Appeal 2020-005089
Application 16/315,884

7
housings should be one-piece homogeneous material with the base.” (Final
Action 4.) According to the Appellant, when this prior art reference is
“considered in its entirety,” Bunsendal teaches “a housing 1 encapsulating
three drives” that are “discrete components.” (Appeal Br. 10–11,
underlining omitted.) The Appellant has the better position.
Bunsendal discloses that “most delta robots” comprise “a base plate
on which three servo drives are mounted.” (Bunsendal ¶ 5.) Bunsendal
discloses that a “drive” for a delta robot can be a “servo motor,” a “linear
motor,” a “stepping motor or other electrical drive,” “[h]ydraulic cylinders
or pneumatic cylinders,” or a “piezo-crystal.” (Id. ¶ 69.) Inasmuch as any
of these drive options involve a gearbox or any other gear cavity, the
Examiner spells out that “[i]t is not Bunsendal, but rather Gorman that is
relied upon to teach these gearbox drive particulars.” (Answer 11.)
Bunsendal explains that in a “hygienic” application, it is important
that “lubricants and any abrasion debris from the drives and/or the
transmission cannot detach and fall into the product.” (Bunsendal ¶ 5.) And
Bunsendal discloses that this objective is furthered when “the base plate is
extended with a housing” (id.), and “all drives are disposed within a
housing” (id. ¶ 6). Thus, Bunsendal teaches that a “housing” can be an
additional element added to a robot in order to further a hygienic objective.
The Examiner does not point to any indication in Bunsendal that the addition
of a hygienic housing could or should be accompanied by a change in the
structure and/or mounting of the drives themselves.
Turning back to Bunsendal’s Figure 1, we note that Bunsendal
describes this drawing as a “schematic diagram of a delta robot.”
Appeal 2020-005089
Application 16/315,884

8
(Bunsendal ¶ 76.) And, as mentioned above, the installation of the three
drives 2 in the housing 1 is schematically diagrammed by dashed lines
outlining roughly oval/rectangular shapes. Bunsendal only otherwise
describes the three drives 2 as “completely encapsulated from the exterior by
the housing 1” and “[o]nly their take-off shafts project out and move an
upper arm 3 in each case like a crank.” (Id. ¶ 76.)
It follows, therefore, that one of ordinary skill in the art would glean
from Bunsendal’s depiction and description of drives 2 that a robot’s drive
components can be disposed within a housing via encapsulation. Indeed,
this encapsulation would further the hygienic objective of preventing the
escape of “lubricants or abrasion debris from the bearings of the motor and
drive” (Bunsendal ¶ 6) because everything but their take-off shafts would be
disposed within the encapsulating housing.
Thus, if Eliasson’s robot is modified in view of Bunsendal, an
encapsulating housing would be an additional element added to the robot.
More specifically, Eliasson’s gearboxes, and the central portion to which
they are connected, would be encapsulated in a housing so that only their
take-off shafts project outside of the housing. Insofar as this encapsulating
housing would consist of one piece in homogenous material, Eliasson’s
gearboxes, and thus the “gear cavities” in the internal compartments of these
gearboxes, would not be part of this one-piece housing.
The Examiner seems to imply that housing regions “surrounding”
Eliasson’s now-encapsulated gearboxes can be considered the claimed “gear
cavities.” (Answer 9.) This approach, at best, would satisfy limitations (1)
and (3), but it would not satisfy limitation (2). In the Examiner’s proposed
Appeal 2020-005089
Application 16/315,884

9
combination of the prior art, limitation (2) is purportedly satisfied by
modifying the interior compartments of Eliasson’s gearboxes to include
bearing seats. Consequently, the bearing seats would be located inside
gearboxes encapsulated by regions of the housing, not in the encapsulating
regions of the housing itself.
Thus, the Examiner does not sufficiently show that the proposed
combination of the prior art would satisfy all three limitations of
independent claims 1 and 8. The Examiner’s further findings and
determinations with respect to the dependent claims do not compensate for
this shortcoming. (See Final Action 4–5.) As such, on the record before us,
we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–8, 10,
12–15
103 Eliasson,
Gorman,
Bunsendal
1–3, 5–8,
10, 12–15
9 103 Eliasson,
Gorman,
Bunsendal,
Mihara
9
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–10,
12–15

REVERSED