Ex Parte Akouka et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 14, 2011

10543371 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 14, 2011)

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