Ex Parte BergDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 2, 201713045573 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2017) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation