Brogardh, Torgny

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2019

14890814 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2019)

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.
14/890,814 11/12/2015 Torgny Brogardh 04190-P0272A 2403
131672 7590 12/31/2019
Whitmyer IP Group LLC
600 Summer Street
3rd Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
EXAMINER
TIGHE, BRENDAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2019 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 TORGNY BROGARDH
___________

Appeal 2018-003774
Application 14/890,814
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9–193 as

1 The Examiner indicates that “[c]laim 21 is objected to as being dependent
upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent
form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening
claims.” Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) 8, dated Apr. 21, 2017.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “ABB Schweiz AG.”
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 2, filed Nov. 6, 2017.
3 Claim 19 is not included in the heading of the rejection but is addressed in
the body of the rejection. See Final Act. 2, 6–7.
Appeal 2018-003774
Application 14/890,814

2
anticipated by Kock (US 7,685,902 B2, issued Mar. 30, 2010) and under 35
U.S.C. § 103 claim 8 as unpatentable over Kock. Claims 4 and 20 have been
canceled. Appeal Br. 12, 14 (Claims App.). An Oral Hearing in accordance
with 37 C.F.R. § 41.47 was held on December 13, 2019. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to an industrial robot comprising a
plurality of actuators working in parallel to manipulate an end effector.”
Spec. ¶ 1, Fig. 1.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the
claimed subject matter and recites:
1. An industrial robot, comprising:
a first actuator configured to rotate a first drive arm about
a first axis;
a second actuator configured to rotate a second drive arm
about a second axis;
a first kinematic chain configured to transmit rotation of
the first drive arm to a respective movement of an end effector,
the first kinematic chain comprising (i) a first rod, (ii) a first joint
connecting the first drive arm and the first rod, the first joint
having at least two degrees of freedom, and (iii) a second joint
connecting the first rod and the end effector; and
a second kinematic chain configured to transmit rotation
of the second actuator to a respective movement of the end
effector, the second kinematic chain comprising (i) a second rod,
(ii) a third joint connecting the second drive arm and the second
rod, (iii) a sub-chain portion connecting the second rod and the
first rod, the sub-chain portion including a fourth joint, (iv) the
first rod, and (v) the second joint;
Appeal 2018-003774
Application 14/890,814

3
wherein movement of the first rod is configured to have at
least two degrees of freedom in relation to the first drive arm.

ANALYSIS

Anticipation by Kock
Claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9–19

Independent claim 1 is directed to an industrial robot including “a
second kinematic chain configured to transmit rotation of the second
actuator to a respective movement of the end effector,” the second kinematic
chain comprising “(i) a second rod, (ii) a third joint connecting the second
drive arm and the second rod, (iii) a sub-chain portion connecting the second
rod and the first rod, the sub-chain portion including a fourth joint, (iv) the
first rod, and (v) the second joint.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Kock teaches
a second kinematic chain (9 & 10 & 12 & 13 & 30 & 33)
configured to transmit rotation of the second actuator [11] to a
respective movement of the end effector [7], the second
kinematic chain comprising the first rod [30], the second joint
[33], a second rod (10), a third joint (12) connecting the second
drive arm and the second rod, a sub-chain portion (13 & 30 &
33) connecting the second rod and the first rod (Fig. 1), the sub-
chain portion including a fourth joint (13) the first rod [30] and
the second joint [33].

Final Act. 3
Appellant contends that “there is nothing in Kock that discloses or
suggests that the link 30 and joint 33 (i.e., the alleged ‘first rod’ and ‘second
joint’) are included in a same kinematic chain as elements 9, 10, 12, and 13
(i.e., the other components of the alleged ‘second kinematic chain’).”
Appeal Br. 7. Specifically, Appellant contends that
Appeal 2018-003774
Application 14/890,814

4
elements “9, 10, 12, and 13” of Kock (i.e., the other components
of the alleged “second kinematic chain”) are not connected to the
link 30 and joint 33 in any way that would permit the rotation
means 11 (i.e., the alleged “second actuator”) to transfer energy
to the platform 7 via the link 30 and/or the joint 33.

Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 3.4
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner states that
[a]s there are no limitations which exclude intervening
connections between the elements of either kinematic chain nor
are there any limitations which exclude any specific elements in
the first and second kinematic chain[,] there is no reason the end
effector of Kock could not act as an indirect connection between
the first rod, second joint, and other elements of the second
kinematic chain of Kock and therefore the first rod and second
joint of Kock are reasonably a part of the second kinematic chain
of Kock.

Ans. 3.5
Appellant has the better position here. Kock discloses:
The first arm 3 comprises a supporting first arm part 9 and a
second arm part comprising a link arrangement 10 pivotally
connected in series via a joint 12. The supporting first arm part
9 is rotationally attached to the column 6 through connecting
means 11. The link arrangement 10 is pivotally connected to the
movable platform 7 via a joint 13.
. . .

The third arm 5 comprises a supporting first arm part 23 and a
second arm part comprising a link arrangement 24 pivotally
connected in serial via joints 25, 26 and 27. The supporting first
arm part 23 is rotary attached to the column 6 through connecting
means 28. The link arrangement 24 comprises three links 29, 30
and 31 of the same length, arranged in parallel and pivotally

4 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Feb. 22, 2018.
5 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Jan. 3, 2018.
Appeal 2018-003774
Application 14/890,814

5
connected to the movable platform 7 via joints 32, 33 and 34 (not
shown), respectively.

Kock 6:42–63 (emphasis omitted), Fig. 1.
Similar to the subject invention, rods 29, 30, and 31 together with first
drive arm 23 of Koch form a first kinematic chain because these components
collectively transmit a rotational force from actuator 28 to end effector 7.
Compare Kock 6:42–47, Fig. 1 with Spec. ¶ 37, Fig. 1. However, as
correctly noted by Appellant, the first and second kinematic chains of Kock
each extend between respective actuators (connectors) 28, 11 and end
effector (platform) 7 “without any connection therebetween.” Reply Br. 4.
Stated differently, first kinematic chain (23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32,
33, 34) of Kock “play[s] no role in transmitting a force” from actuator
(connector) 11 to end effector (platform) 7, and second kinematic chain (3,
9, 10, 12, 13) of Kock “play[s] no role in transmitting a force” from actuator
(connector) 28 to end effector (platform) 7. Reply Br. 4; see also Kock
6:42–63, Fig. 1.
Additionally, Appellant correctly notes that end effector (platform) 7
“does not form a part of either kinematic chain” of Kock. Reply Br. 4. To
consider end effector (platform) 7 as an “indirect connection” between first
rod 30, second joint 33, and elements 3, 9, 10, 12, 13 of the second
kinematic chain of Kock, as the Examiner proposes, more or less renders
meaningless or superfluous the second kinematic chain being “configured to
transmit rotation of the second actuator to a respective movement of the end
effector,” as set forth in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.)
(emphases added); see also Ans. 3; Reply Br. 4–5; Bicon Inc. v. Straumann
Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Stumbo v. Eastman
Appeal 2018-003774
Application 14/890,814

6
Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim
constructions which render phrases in claims superfluous). For these
reasons, the Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence
that Kock anticipates the industrial robot of claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–
3, 5–7, and 9–19 as anticipated by Kock.

Obviousness over Kock
Claim 8
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over Kock is
based on the same unsupported findings discussed above with respect to
independent claim 1. See Final Act. 7–8. The Examiner does not rely on
any proposed modifications to Kock to remedy the deficiencies of Kock.
Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed in the rejection of claim
1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over
Kock.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–7, and
9–19
102(a)(2) Kock 1–3, 5–7,
and 9–19
8 103 Kock 8
Overall
Outcome
1–3 and 5–
19

REVERSED