90012151 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2014)

Ex Parte 7222000 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 10, 2014

90012151 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2014)

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. 90/012,151 02/22/2012 7222000 '000 EX PARTE REEXAM 2364 20995 7590 04/10/2014 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP 2040 MAIN STREET FOURTEENTH FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92614 EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ANDRES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3993 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/10/2014 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 INTOUCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant ____________________ Appeal 2014-002030 Reexamination Control 90/012,151 Patent 7,222,000 Technology Center 3900 ____________________ Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2014-002030 Application 90/012,151 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 47. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to a remote controlled robot system with automatic shut-off features and to a method of remotely controlling a robot. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A remote controlled robot system, comprising: a remote control station that transmits a robot control command; and, a robot that includes a camera and moves in response to said robot control command, said robot comprising a controller that provides a stop command if said robot does not receive a subsequent robot control command within a time interval. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kintou Jouppi LeDain US 6,430,471 B1 US 6,292,713 B1 US 2003/0069752 A1 Aug. 6, 2002 Sep. 18, 2001 Apr. 10, 2003 Fong; “Collaborative Control: A Robot-Centric Model for Vehicle Teleoperation,” November 2001. Stoianovici et al., “Robotic Tools for Minimally Invasive Urologic Surgery,” December 2002. REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-15, 17-19, 21-23, 31-33, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kintou. Fin. Rej. 4. Claims 4, 9, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kintou and Jouppi. Fin. Rej. 9. Appeal 2014-002030 Application 90/012,151 3 Claims 34-36 and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kintou and Fong. Fin. Rej. 9. Claims 24 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kintou and Stoianovici. Fin. Rej. 10. Claims 25-30 and 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kintou and LeDain. Fin. Rej. 10. OPINION Regarding independent claims 1, 6, and 11, the Examiner determined Kintou taught the claimed invention except for a teaching that the controller provides a stop command if the robot does not receive a subsequent control command. Fin Rej. 4. The Examiner determined a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kintou to issue stop commands based on no receipt of control commands in order to create a more simple control system. Fin. Rej. 5. Regarding independent claims 14, 18, and 22, the Examiner determined a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kintou to send the stop command if subsequent video images are not received by the remote station, in order to create a more simple control system. Fin. Rej. 6. As Appellant points out, however, it would seem the modification of Kintou would not create a simpler system, but rather, would layer additional steps upon an already complex control system. App. Br. 24. These additional steps would seem to complicate or destroy elements of the prior art and the Examiner has not provided any factual reasoning as to why or how modifying the controller to provide a stop command in the event the robot does not receive a command produces a simpler control system. Kintou is silent as to what action is taken when a command or a video image Appeal 2014-002030 Application 90/012,151 4 is never received (see “NO” lanes of decisions S42 and S31 in Figs. 9 and 8, respectively) and the Examiner has failed to provide additional evidence teaching the transmission of a stop command upon no receipt of a command or image. Since the Examiner has not provided factual support for providing a stop command on no receipt of a command or video image and since the Examiner has failed to articulate rational underpinnings for the proposed reason to modify Kintou, the rejection of claims 1, 6, 11, 14, 18, and 22 is reversed. The additional prior art, as applied by the Examiner, fails to remedy the deficiencies of Kintou discussed above. Accordingly the rejections of the dependent claims are also reversed. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2014-002030 Application 90/012,151 5 ack Patent Owner: KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP 2040 Main Street Fourteenth Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Third Party Requester: Hankin Patent Law, APC 6404 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1020 Los Angeles, CA 90048-5211