Ex Parte Berg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 2, 2017

13045573 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2017)

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.
13/045,573 03/11/2011 Karel Van Den Berg 04132.0191.USP0 3203
32894 7590 06/06/2017
HOYNPr ROKH MONFOTFR T T P
EXAMINER
Rembrandt Tower 31st Floor
Amstelplein 1
BURGESS, MARC R
Amsterdam, 1096 HA
NETHERLANDS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/06/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
amdocketing @ hoyngrokh .com
ronny. amir sehhi @ hoyngrokh .com
david. o wen @ hoyngrokh .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAREL VAN DEN BERG
Appeal 2015-005705
Application 13/045,573
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1—5 and 8—19. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 “The real party in interest is Lely Patent N.V., Weverskade 110, 3147 PA
Maassluis, The Netherlands, the assignee of the present patent application.”
(Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2015-005705
Application 13/045,573
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant’s invention relates to “a teat cup connection system
comprising an optical sensor that is configured to form an image of the
environment above the teat cup through the opening of the teat cup.”
(Spec. 12.)
Illustrative Claim2
1. A system for connecting a teat cup of an automatic milking
system to a teat, comprising:
at least one teat cup having a chamber and an opening to
accommodate a teat, wherein the chamber comprises a base
through which milk is transported from the teat cup to a milk
line;
a robot arm, which is configured to move the teat cup;
a teat cup positioning system with at least one optical sensor
and which is configured to control the robot arm with the aid of
the sensor to connect the teat cup,
wherein the optical sensor is provided in the base of the teat cup
chamber and is configured to form an image of the environment
above the teat cup through the opening.
References
Akerman US 4,223,635 Sept. 23, 1980
Iwasaki US 5,450,163 Sept. 12, 1995
Bull US 5,666,903 Sept. 16, 1997
Berg US 6,167,838 B1 Jan. 2, 2001
Nilsson US 6,431,116 B1 Aug. 13, 2002
Peacock US 2006/0196432 A1 Sept. 7, 2006
Hogewerf Equipment for taking video images of teats
dairy farming, 6 Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture 235-242 (1991)
2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix (“Claims
App.”) set forth on pages 13—15 of the Appeal Brief.
2
Appeal 2015-005705
Application 13/045,573
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1—3, 10, 11, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Akerman and Hogewerf. (Non-Final Action 2.)
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Akerman, Hogewerf, and Berg. (Id. at 5.)
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Akerman, Hogewerf, and Iwasaki. (Id. at 6.)
The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Akerman, Hogewerf, and Bull. (Id.)
The Examiner rejects claims 14—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Akerman, Hogewerf, and Nilsson. (Id. at 7.)
The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Akerman, Hogewerf, Nilsson, and Peacock. (Id. at 8.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites a “system for connecting a teat cup of an
automatic milking system to a teat.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The
Examiner finds that Akerman discloses an automatic milking system having
a cup-connecting system. (See Non-Final Action 3.) Akerman “provide[s] a
method of placing a teat cup on a cow’s teat which requires less complex
movement and which, although capable of being carried out by hand, is
susceptible of being carried out by automatic machinery.” (Akerman, col. 1,
11. 32-38.)
Independent claim 1 recites a “robot arm” that is “configured to move
the teat cup,” an “optical sensor,” and a “positioning system” that is
“configured to control the robot arm with the aid of the [optical] sensor.”
3
Appeal 2015-005705
Application 13/045,573
(Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Akerman’s automatic
milking system comprises a robot arm 48, an optical sensor 64, and a
positioning system 70. (See Non-Final Action 3.) In Akerman, element 48
includes “a head portion 60 to which there is fitted a holder 62 for a teat cup
and an upwardly facing electronic camera 64.” (Akerman col. 4,11. 33—43;
see also Figs. 4—6.) According to the Examiner, Akerman “teaches an
upward facing camera directly next to a teat cup.” (Answer 4.)
Independent claim 1 also recites that “the optical sensor is provided in
the base of the teat cup chamber and is configured to form an image of the
environment above the teat cup through the opening.” (Appeal Br., Claims
App.) The Examiner finds that Hogewerf teaches “a teat cup with a camera
in the base.” (Answer 3.) In Hogewerf, “[t]he physical condition of the
teats is recorded once a month on video images,” and its camera is used for
this purpose. (Hogewerf, p. 236.)
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify
Akerman’s cup-connection system “by placing the camera inside the teat
cup as taught by Hogewerf in order to obtain a direct image of the teat.”
(Non-Final Action 4.) The Examiner explains that “Akerman teaches an
upward facing camera directly next to a teat cup,” and so “moving the
camera inside the cup (for the purpose of obtaining a more direct image of
the teat) can be viewed as a rearrangement of parts.” (Answer 4.)
The Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to provide sufficient
reasoning to support the rejection of independent claim 1. (See, e.g., Appeal
Br. 7, 10.) The Appellant asserts that Akerman’s connection process is
“inextricably tied to the lateral approach toward the teat for connection
thereof to the teat cup.” (Id. at 10.) In other words, Akerman’s connection
4
Appeal 2015-005705
Application 13/045,573
process does not entail “a substantially straightforward, direct vertical
connection approach from underneath the teat.” (Id.) And actuation of
Akerman’s cup-connection mechanism occurs after “[t]he camera 64 aids
the arm in positioning the teat cup proximate a teat.” (Id. at 8.)
We are persuaded by the Appellant’s position because, in Akerman,
“camera 64, in conjunction with the control means” is “used to determine the
position of a teat,” and then the control means “causes the machine to move
until the teat cup is at a starting position proximate a teat.” (Akerman,
col. 4,11. 57—62.) This starting position is shown in Akerman’s Figure 3a,
reproduced below.
This drawing shows a teat cup 10 in a starting position “above the tip 42 of
the teat but below the cow’s udder.” (Id. at col. 3,11. 33—35.) Akerman’s
camera 64, in the disclosed location next to teat cup 10, would be able to
determine the position of the teat during a lateral approach of teat cup 10 to
the starting position shown in Figure 3 a. However, the Examiner does not
sufficiently explain how Akerman’s camera 64, in the proposed relocation
inside teat cup 10, would be able to determine the position of the teat during
this lateral approach.
Moreover, in the starting position shown in Figure 3a, Akerman’s
relocated camera 64 would not have a direct image of the teat. As such, the
Examiner does not adequately establish that “it would be reasonable for one
5
Appeal 2015-005705
Application 13/045,573
of ordinary skill in the art to select the camera placement as taught by
Hogewerf to obtain the benefits of the direct view.” (Answer 5.)
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Examiner’s further findings and
determinations with respect to claims 2—5 and 8—19, and the additional prior
art references (i.e., Berg, Iwasaki, Bull, Nilsson, Peacock), do not compensate
for this shortcoming in the rejection of independent claim 1. (See Non-Final
Action 4—9.) Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 2—5 and 8—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—5 and 8—19.
REVERSED
6