Ex Parte Ban et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2011

10989432 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KAZUNORI BAN and KATSUTOSHI TAKIZAWA
____________

Appeal 2010-002751
Application 10/989,432
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL and
MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002751
Application 10/989,432

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 2
decision finally rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, 3
as being indefinite, and Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being 4
anticipated by Habibi (WO 03/064116 A2, publ. Aug. 7, 2003). Claims 9-16 5
have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. 6
§ 6(b). 7
We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 8
The Appellants invention is directed to a device for correcting 9
positions between a robot and a work object in a production line, after the 10
robot or work object changes position. (Spec. 1, 4). Claim 1 is the sole 11
independent claim and representative of the claims on appeal. 12
1. A teaching position correcting device that 13
corrects a teaching position of a motion program 14
for a robot equipped with a robot mechanical unit, 15
comprising: 16
a storage that stores the teaching position of 17
the motion program; 18
a vision sensor that is provided at a 19
predetermined part of the robot mechanical unit, 20
and measures a position and orientation of the 21
vision sensor relative to the predetermined part 22
and a three-dimensional position of each of at least 23
three sites not aligned in a straight line on an 24
object to be worked by the robot; 25
a position calculator that obtains the three-26
dimensional position of each of the at least three 27
sites before and after a change respectively of a 28
position of the robot mechanical unit relative to the 29
object to be worked, based on measured data 30
obtained by the vision sensor; and 31
a robot control device that corrects the 32
teaching position of the motion program stored in 33
Appeal 2010-002751
Application 10/989,432

3
the storage, based on a change in a relative 1
position obtained by the position calculator. 2
(Italics added). 3
ISSUE 4
The Appellants have addressed independent claim 1 under both 5
grounds of rejection separately. (App. Br. 4-6). The Appellants do not 6
present separate arguments for dependent claims 2-8. (See App. Br. 4-6). In 7
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), the dependent claims stand or 8
fall with independent claim 1. This appeal turns on the following issues. 9
First, is claim 1 indefinite because a vision sensor that 10
“measures a position and orientation of the vision sensor 11
relative to the predetermined part and a three-dimensional 12
position of each of at least three sites not aligned in a straight 13
line on an object to be worked by the robot” has more than one 14
reasonable interpretation? (Br. 4). 15
Second, does Habibi disclose the “position calculator” 16
and “robot control device” as properly construed from claim 1? 17
(See Br. 5-6). 18
ANALYSIS 19
First Issue 20
Claim 1 recites 21
a vision sensor that is provided at a predetermined 22
part of the robot mechanical unit, and measures a 23
position and orientation of the vision sensor 24
relative to the predetermined part and a three-25
dimensional position of each of at least three sites 26
not aligned in a straight line on an object to be 27
worked by the robot. 28
(Italics added). 29
Appeal 2010-002751
Application 10/989,432

4
The Examiner concludes that the claim is indefinite because the 1
limitation directed to the vision sensor has two different constructions. (See 2
Ans. 3-4). The Appellants contend that the limitation directed to the vision 3
sensor is clear. (App. Br. 4). A claim under examination susceptible of 4
more than one reasonable interpretation may be indefinite if the scope of the 5
claim differs significantly depending on which of the reasonable 6
interpretations one adopts. Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211-12 7
(BPAI 2008). 8
The Examiner concludes that it is unclear if the term “relative to” 9
relates to the predetermined part, or both the predetermined part and the 10
three-dimensional position of each of the at least three sites. The former 11
construction results in “the vision sensor's measurement of position and 12
orientation of the object could be relative to any other component” (Ans. 7-13
8) (italics added); whereas the latter construction results in “the vision 14
sensor's measurement of position and orientation of the three-dimensional 15
position of the object is relative to the vision sensor.” (Ans. 7) (italics 16
added). Each construction of the vision sensor limitation is reasonable and 17
differs significantly depending on the construction adopted. Thus the 18
Examiner’s conclusion is correct. 19
The Appellants also point out that that claims are the interpreted in 20
light of the Specification. (App. Br. 4). However, the Specification does not 21
remedy the ambiguous claim limitation. 22
Appeal 2010-002751
Application 10/989,432

5
Second Issue 1
Claim 1 recites 2
a position calculator that obtains the three-3
dimensional position of each of the at least three 4
sites before and after a change respectively of a 5
position of the robot mechanical unit relative to the 6
object to be worked, based on measured data 7
obtained by the vision sensor; and 8
a robot control device that corrects the teaching 9
position of the motion program stored in the 10
storage, based on a change in a relative position 11
obtained by the position calculator. 12
(Italics added). The Appellants’ arguments regarding the anticipation 13
rejection do not require us to interpret the claim language which was the 14
basis of the rejection of claim 1 as indefinite. In some cases, when 15
substantial confusion exists as to the interpretation of a claim and no 16
reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to the terms in a claim, a 17
determination as to patentability under § 102 is not made. See In re Steele, 18
305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962). In this instance, we consider it to be 19
desirable to avoid the inefficiency of piecemeal appellate review. See Ex 20
parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537, 540 (Bd. App. 1984). Therefore, in the 21
interest of judicial economy, it is appropriate to address the Appellants’ 22
arguments regarding whether Habibi anticipates claim 1. 23
We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely 24
on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims “their broadest 25
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” and “in light of 26
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the 27
art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 28
2004). As understood from the Specification, the robot mechanical unit 1b, 29
Appeal 2010-002751
Application 10/989,432

6
includes the mechanical components of the robot 1, including the robot arm 1
1c, the work tool 1d and the robot base 8. (Spec. 7-8, 10, 18; and figs. 2, 9). 2
Changing the position of the robot mechanical unit 1b requires changing the 3
position of all of the mechanical components of the robot mechanical unit, 4
including the robot base 8. 5
Habibi discloses the use of a three-dimensional handling of an object 6
by a robot 10 having a manipulating arm 12, base 22, an attached tool 14 7
with a one camera 16 mounted on the robot 10 electrically connected to a 8
computer control station 24. (Habibi, Abstract, and p. 6, ll. 6-10). The 9
Examiner finds that Habibi’s method of teaching features of the object and a 10
handling path as depicted by the flowchart in Figure 6 and the method of 11
object positioning and handling as depicted by the flowchart in Figure 7 12
evidence the before and after change in position of the robot mechanical unit 13
relative to the object to be worked. (Ans. 5). The flowcharts of these 14
Figures entails movement of manipulating arm 12 and camera 16, but lacks 15
movement of the entirety of the mechanical structure of Habibi’s robot, 16
particularly base 22. 17
The Appellants correctly point out that Habibi teaches reorienting and 18
moving camera 16 located at the end of a robot manipulating arm 12. (See 19
App. Br. 6). The Appellants contend that Habibi’s teaching, i.e. reorienting 20
and moving camera 16, does not result in the position of the robot 21
mechanical unit relative to the object changing between two detecting 22
positions. (App. Br. 6). In other words, with respect to the Examiner’s 23
findings, although some of the components of Habibi’s robot mechanical 24
unit move, the robot mechanical unit does not move at least because base 22 25
Appeal 2010-002751
Application 10/989,432

7
does not move. Since Habibi’s robot mechanical unit does not move, it also 1
does not change position. 2
Consequently Habibi’s disclosure lacks “a change respectively of a 3
position of the robot mechanical unit relative to the object to be worked” as 4
recited in claim 1. And, therefore Habibi’s disclosure also lacks “a robot 5
control device that corrects the teaching position of the motion program 6
stored in the storage, based on a change in a relative position obtained by the 7
position calculator” also recited from claim 1. (See App. Br. 5). 8
9
CONCLUSION 10
First, claim 1 is indefinite because a vision sensor that “measures a 11
position and orientation of the vision sensor relative to the predetermined 12
part and a three-dimensional position of each of at least three sites not 13
aligned in a straight line on an object to be worked by the robot” has more 14
than one reasonable interpretation. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 15
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. 16
Second, Habibi does not disclose the “position calculator” and “robot 17
control device” as properly construed from claim 1. We do not sustain the 18
rejection of claims 1-8 under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Habibi. 19
20
DECISION 21
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claim 1. 22
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 2-8.23
Appeal 2010-002751
Application 10/989,432

8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 1
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See § 1.136(a)(1). 2
3
4
AFFIRMED-IN-PART 5
6
7
8
Klh 9