Ex Parte Akouka et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 14, 201110543371 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 14, 2011) Copy Citation 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. 10/543,371 07/26/2005 Henri M Akouka ITC-332US 1213 23122 7590 06/14/2011 RATNERPRESTIA P.O. BOX 980 VALLEY FORGE, PA 19482 EXAMINER DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3632 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/14/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte HENRI M. AKOUKA, CHRISTOPHER L. WEST and CHARLES NAPPEN ________________ Appeal 2010-001791 Application 10/543,371 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER and MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-001791 Application 10/543,371 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 8-12, 19-22, 25-31, 37 and 38 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Alizade (“A Forward and Reverse Displacement Analysis of a 6-DOF In-Parallel Manipulator,” Mech. Mach. Theory, Vol. 29, No. 1 pp. 115-124 (1994)); claims 4, 5, 13, 17, 23, 24 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Alizade; and claims 7, 14- 16, 18 and 33-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Alizade and Khater (US 6,023,173, iss. Feb. 8, 2000). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a test head positioning system that rotates the test head via the movement of a flexible joint spaced from the axis of rotation of the test head. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. Apparatus for supporting a load, comprising: a pivot apparatus coupled to said load and movable with said load; a base stationary relative to said pivot apparatus; at least two areas of support between said pivot apparatus and said base, wherein respectively opposite force components a) intersect said load; and b) are at said two areas of support; said two areas of support move along at least one curved path to tilt said load; said two areas of support move in a direction causing an area of the load to move opposite to said direction. SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. Appeal 2010-001791 Application 10/543,371 3 ISSUE A first issue is whether Alizade’s manipulator discloses “opposite force components” and whether such components intersect Alizade’s load (i.e., Alizade’s platform) and are at Alizade’s two areas of support. A second issue is whether Alizade’s manipulator moves two areas of support in a first direction thereby causing an area of the load to move in an opposite direction. OPINION 1. Alizade Discloses Opposite Force Components that Intersect the Load and are at Two Areas of Support The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6, 8-12, 19-22, 25-31, 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Alizade (Ans. 3). Appellants argue these claims as a single group (App. Br. 5). We select claim 1 as representative of this group with the remaining claims standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The Examiner relies on Alizade for teaching all the claimed features including opposite force components that intersect the load which are also at two areas of support (Ans. 3). Specifically, the Examiner finds that because Alizade supports a load, “there are naturally equal and opposite force components” that resist the load (Ans. 9). The Examiner also found that these opposite force components “intersect the load where the support members contact the load” and that the opposite force components are at two areas of support (Ans. 3). Appellants contend that Alizade does not disclose or suggest such features and specifically that the claimed “opposite force components” are neither disclosed nor suggested by Alizade (App. Br. 6). App App prov App “2B Spec force force 13-3 inter 893 of fo force havin curv Ali eal 2010-0 lication 10 Appellan ides an ex ellants, ho and 3B in ification’s s acting o s 2B and 4). The Uni preting cla F.2d 319, rces 2B an s that are Alizade’ g three hy ed path. zade’s Fig man 01791 /543,371 ts do not plicit defin wever, con Figs. 1B a general te n the test h 3B suppor ted States ims as bro 321 (Fed. d 3B, we not co-line s Figures draulic cy ures 1 (ab ipulator p direct our ition for th tend that “ nd 1C” (A aching tha ead” and t the test h Patent & T adly as th Cir. 1989) hold that “ ar. 1 and 2 (re linder leg ove left) a latform ha 4 attention t e term “o opposite f pp. Br. 6) t Figures that the tw ead in stat rademark eir terms r . In view o opposite f produced s mounted nd 2 (abov ving multi o where th pposite fo orce comp . This is c 1B and 1C o radially ic equilibr Office is t easonably f the diffe orce comp below) dis on sliders e right, pl ple areas o e Specific rce compo onents” a onsistent w illustrate directed re ium (Spec asked with allow. In rent radia onents” in close a ma that move an view) i f support ation nents.” re forces ith the “various action . p. 5, ll. re Zletz, l direction cludes nipulator along a llustrate a . s Appeal 2010-001791 Application 10/543,371 5 Alizade discloses a pivot apparatus where each hydraulic cylinder is secured to the manipulator platform (Alizade Figs. 1 and 2). One skilled in the art would understand that each hydraulic cylinder can impart a force to the connected platform. Further, Alizade’s adjacent cylinders are not co- linear nor would be the forces they impart. Accordingly, we hold that the forces imparted by Alizade’s cylinders are encompassed by the broad meaning of “opposite force components”. The Examiner further finds that Alizade discloses “at least two areas of support” and that the support areas “intersect the load” (Ans. 3). We concur and find that Alizade discloses multiple areas of support, e.g., Alizade’s cylinder/slider combinations 3,6 and 4,7 that move along a circular path. We also find that Alizade’s hydraulic cylinders intersect the load at pivot areas 6, 7 and 8. We further find that Alizade’s force components are “at said two areas of support” as also required in claim 1. 2. Alizade Discloses a Manipulator that Moves Two Areas of Support in One Direction Causing an Area of the Load to Move in an Opposite Direction The Examiner references the curved path shown in Alizade’s Figure 2 stating that “when the two areas of support (3 and 5) on the left hand side of the figure move down, an area of the load attached to the other area of support (4) would naturally move in the opposite direction” (Ans. 3 and 10). Appellants dispute this and present several Exhibits and illustrations explaining why Alizade “neither discloses nor suggests the claimed feature set forth above” (App. Br. 7-9, Reply Br. 1-3). Appellants’ Exhibits A and B are Appellants’ drawings 1B and 1C and include annotations made by Appellants. Appellants contend that when Appeal 2010-001791 Application 10/543,371 6 the two left-side supports move counter-clockwise down along an arc about the axis of rotation, the right-side surface of Appellants’ test head rotates upwardly about this axis (App. Br. 6). This is an accurate characterization of Appellants’ disclosed device. We find that Alizade’s Figure 2 also teaches that when similarly viewed along the axis of rotation of the curved path, when supports 3 and 5 are rotated counter-clockwise, thus moving downwardly in the direction of the x-axis1, area of load 4 moves upwardly in the direction of the x-axis. The additional illustrations provided by Appellants arise after Appellants ‘turn’ or rotate Alizade to provide a “side view of Alizade” (App. Br. 8, see also Reply Br. 1-2). Appellants contend that if “Alizade were turned, it would cease to function” but the Examiner does not turn Alizade (App. Br. 7 and 9). Rather, as discussed in footnote 1, the Examiner uses the terms “downwardly” and “upwardly” to describe opposite directions along the horizontal x-axis. Appellants further contend that extending or retracting one of Alizade’s hydraulic cylinders in these side views “does not have the effect of ‘causing’ another hydraulic cylinder to move in an ‘opposite’ direction” as claimed (App. Br. 8). Appellants’ illustrations pertain to linear movement and the effect such movement has along Alizade’s vertical z-axis (App. Br. 8, Reply Br. 1-2). These illustrations do not address the Examiner’s reference to and description of rotational movement about the z- axis discussed above. Further, claim 1 does not require linear or vertical movement. Appellants do not present arguments which refute the Examiner’s finding that in reference to Alizade’s Figure 2, the rotation of 1 Alizade’s Figure 2 is a plan view. Thus, the x-axis is in fact a horizontal axis. We, like the Examiner, use the terms “downwardly” and “upwardly” to describe the opposing directions along this axis. Appeal 2010-001791 Application 10/543,371 7 areas 3 and 5 in a downward direction (in the direction of the x-axis) about the z-axis causes the load at 4 to move upwardly (in the direction of the x- axis) about this axis of rotation. This finding is also consistent with Appellants’ Exhibits A and B that were presented by Appellants to explain the claimed opposite movement (App. Br. 6). Appellants further make assumptions about how “the Examiner assumes Alizade’s manipulator performs” (Reply Br. 3). We decline to credit unsupported attorney argument. See Estee Lauder, Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Based on the record presented, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1 as well as claims 2-3, 6, 8-12, 19-22, 25-31, 37 and 38 which stand or fall with claim 1. 3. Claims 4, 5, 13, 17, 23, 24 and 32 are Obvious over Alizade Appellants contend that claims 4, 5, 13, 17, 23, 24 and 32 are allowable because they “depend from allowable claims” (App. Br. 10). Each of these claims depend directly from either claim 1 or claim 19. The rejection of claims 1 and 19 has been affirmed above. For similar reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 13, 17, 23, 24 and 32. 4. Claims 7, 14-16, 18 and 33-36 are Obvious over Alizade in view of Khater Appellants contend that claims 7, 14-16, 18 and 33-36 are allowable because they “depend from allowable claims” (App. Br. 10). Each of these claims depend directly or indirectly from either claim 1 or 19. The rejection Appeal 2010-001791 Application 10/543,371 8 of claims 1 and 19 has been affirmed above. For similar reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 14-16, 18 and 33-36. CONCLUSION OF DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation