Ex Parte Bonin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13154732 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
13/154,732 06/07/2011 Uwe Bonin Pll,0120 (38698-0021) 1565
26574 7590
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
PATENT DEPARTMENT
233 S. Wacker Drive-Suite 6600
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473
EXAMINER
RINK, RYAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
patents-CH @ schiffhardin.com
jbombien @ schiffhardin. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UWE BONIN
Appeal 2015-002815
Application 13/154,7321
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, AMANDA F. WIEKER, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Uwe Bonin (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—15. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is KUKA Laboratories
GmbH. Appeal Br. 1 (filed Sept. 11, 2014).
Appeal 2015-002815
Application 13/154,732
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “a method and a controller to control
a robot, wherein the controller receives safety information about a network
data connection.” Spec. 1.
Claims 1 and 13—15 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced
below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed invention:
1. A computerized controller for a robot, comprising:
a computerized processor configured to generate control signals
at an output of the computerized processor in a form
adapted to operate a robot in a first operating mode to
perform a plurality of operational functions;
a network;
a receiver configured to receive a data set comprising a plurality
of data subsets respectively representing different safety
information via said network data connection and that
provides said plurality of subsets respectively representing
said different safety information to said computerized
processor;
said processor comprising a safety module configured to execute
safety functions dependent on said different safety
information respectively represented by the data subsets
received by the receiver, in order to prevent said processor
from generating a control signal that would cause said
robot to perform at least one of said operational functions;
and
said processor comprising a simulation module configured to
receive an input indicating operating of said robot in a
second operating mode that takes said robot out of said
first operating mode, and thereupon to simulate the safety
information represented by at least one of said data
subsets, as a simulated data subset, and to supply said
simulated data subset to said safety module and thereby
causing said safety module to execute the respective safety
function that is dependent on said safety information
2
Appeal 2015-002815
Application 13/154,732
represented by the simulated data subset, as a replacement
of said safety information receivable by said receiver via
said network, in order to permit said processor to generate
said control signal that would cause said robot to perform
said at least one of said operational functions.
Appeal Br. 16—17 (Claims App., filed Sept. 23, 2014).
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1,3,4, 7—10, and 12—15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Meyer-Grafe
(US 6,957,115 Bl, iss. Oct. 18, 2005) and Tanaka (US
2006/0202556 Al, pub. Sept. 14, 2006).
II. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Meyer-Grafe, Tanaka, and Gilliland
(US 2001/0004718 Al, pub. June 21, 2001).
III. The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Meyer-Grafe, Tanaka, and Sjoberg (US
2009/0128079 Al, pub. May 21, 2009).
ANALYSIS
Addressing Rejection I, Appellant argues the Examiner combines
Meyer-Grafe and Tanaka improperly to demonstrate the unpatentability of a
computerized controller for a robot with each of the elements independent
claim 1 recites. Appeal Br. 6—14. More specifically, Appellant raises a
single dispute and contends, “a person of ordinary skill in the field of
designing robot control systems would [not] find it obvious to combine
teachings from Tanaka et al. and Meyer-Grafe et al., because those
references respectively disclose different alternatives for controlling an
3
Appeal 2015-002815
Application 13/154,732
automatic device.” Id. at 7. Appellant has not presented arguments for the
patentability of claims 3, 4, 7—10, and 12—15 apart from claim 1. See id.
at 6—14. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we
select claim 1 as the representative claim, with claims 3, 7—10, and 12—15
standing or falling with claim 1.
Except for the limitation for data manipulation permitting a robot to
perform an operational function, the Examiner finds Meyer-Grafe teaches
every other limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 4—5. Turning to Tanaka, the
Examiner finds it teaches,
a system and method for controlling a robot operation including
the exceedingly well-known function of a safety override (enable
switch) wherein a function wherein the robot is taken out of a
first operation mode and put into a second operation mode
wherein the second operation mode permits a processor to
generate a control signal that would cause said robot to perform
a at least one operational function (enable switch allowing
teaching mode while safety gate is open).
Id. at 5. Thus, the Examiner finds the combination of Meyer-Grafe and
Tanaka discloses each of the limitations of claim 1, which Appellant does
not dispute.
Instead, Appellant’s challenge is limited to whether the Examiner
properly made a prima facie case for combining the teachings of Meyer-
Grafe and Tanaka to render claim 1 obvious.2 Appeal Br. 6—14; Reply Br.
2—5. The Examiner concludes,
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to modify the robot control system as
taught by Meyer-Grafe with the safety override as taught by
2 Appellant asserts the same arguments apply regardless of which reference
the Examiner relies on as the primary or secondary reference. Reply Br. 2—
3.
4
Appeal 2015-002815
Application 13/154,732
Tanaka in order to allow for additional modes of operation of the
robot when the safety device is in operation, such as a teach
mode, a low speed mode, or to allow an operator to maintain or
provide other functions within close proximity of the robot, for
example within a safety fence.
Final Act. 5. Appellant argues that, because Tanaka discloses a hardware-
based control system, and Meyer-Grafe discloses a software/network-based
control system, a person of ordinary skill in the field of designing robot
control systems would not find it obvious to combine the teachings of
Tanaka and Meyer-Grafe. Appeal Br. 7—8.
Appellant submits modifying Meyer-Grafe in accordance with the
hardware-based teachings of Tanaka would be considered by a person of
ordinary skill in the art as a “backwards” step from the procedure disclosed
in Meyer-Grafe, since it would be re-introducing the very type of technology
that Meyer-Grafe teaches should be avoided. Reply Br. 4. As support,
Appellant refers to Meyer-Grafe’s teaching, at column 2, lines 4—7, that,
“[o]ne object of the invention is thus to provide a safety related automation
bus system which requires as little hardware redundancy as possible, and
which can be flexibly matched to the respective requirements,” and argues
that “[t]he invention is therefore based on the reliability of present-day
automation systems, and integrates pure emergency electronics or software,
which become actively involved in the operation of the system only when
the individual standard technology is operating incorrectly.” Id. at 3^4.
The Examiner notes properly that the rejection is not based upon a
bodily incorporation of Tanaka’s structure into Meyer-Grafe’s device.
Ans. 5—6 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather,
5
Appeal 2015-002815
Application 13/154,732
the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”)); see also In re Nievelt, 482
F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does
not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”). Further,
Appellant has not asserted that the proposed modification would have been
beyond the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Absent such
an assertion, we “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ,” and find a person of
ordinary skill in the art would overcome those difficulties within their level
of skill. KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also id.
at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton.”).
Appellant’s argument also fails to address the rationale provided by
the Examiner, namely, “allowing] for additional modes of operation of the
robot when the safety device is in operation, such as a teach mode, a low
speed mode, or to allow an operator to maintain or provide other functions
within close proximity of the robot, for example within a safety fence.”
Finally, to the extent Appellant’s argument relies upon a “teaches away”
rationale to rebut the Examiner’s determination, the evidence cited does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the combination that the
Examiner relies upon. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Appellant offers no persuasive evidence that anything technically is
required to implement the Tanaka teachings into the Meyer-Grafe
application that would necessarily undermine the objectives Meyer-Grafe
seeks to achieve. As a result, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive for
6
Appeal 2015-002815
Application 13/154,732
showing an error with the Examiner’s determination claim 1 would have
been obvious in view of Meyer-Grafe and Tanaka.
For Rejection II, Appellant does not present separate patentability
arguments of dependent claims 5 and 6; in fact, Appellant does not address
the factual findings and conclusions the Examiner relies upon in Rejection II
at all. See id. at 6—14. Regarding Rejection III, which only addresses
dependent claim 11, Appellant limits its argument to the one articulated for
claim 1 and asserts Sjoberg does not cure the deficiencies of the rejection of
base claim 1. Id. at 14. As discussed above, however, Appellant has not
persuasively shown a deficiency to exist with the rejection of base claim 1.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 3—15.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 3—15 are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7