Ex Parte Bonin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12868184 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/868,184 08/25/2010
26875 7590 08/31/2016
WOOD, HERRON & EV ANS, LLP
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
UweBonin
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
KLAB-31 5411
EXAMINER
RINK,RYANJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
usptodock@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UWE BONIN and STEP AN STURM
Appeal2014-007789
Application 12/868, 184
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LEE L. STEPINA, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Uwe Bonin and Stefan Sturm (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14-19 and 21-35.2 We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is KUKA Laboratories
GmbH. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 1-13 and 20 are canceled. Id. at 15-16 (Claims App.).
Appeal2014-007789
Application 12/868, 184
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
Appellants "invention relates to a method and an arrangement for safe
manual control of a manipulator, in particular a robot such as for example an
industrial robot." Spec. 1:3--4.3 Claim 14, reproduced below from page 15
(Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
14. A method for controlling a robot, wherein movement of
the robot is controlled by a control device, the method
compnsmg:
communicating operating commands to the control
device from an operating device having a first safety level that
uses a non-secure technology lacking redundancy or diversity;
monitoring operation of the robot with a protective
device to determine whether a permissible state of operation is
present, the protective device having a second safety level that
uses a secure technology that includes redundancy or diversity
so that the second safety level is higher than the first safety
level; and
executing commands received by the control device from
the operating device only if the protective device is indicating a
permissible state is present.
Independent claim 22, drawn to a system for controlling a robot, and
independent claim 34, drawn to a method for controlling a robot, contain
similar limitations as claim 14. See App. Br. 17, 19-20 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
3 As used herein, "Spec." or "Specification" refers to the English-language
translation filed on August 26, 2010.
2
Appeal2014-007789
Application 12/868, 184
Akashi
Sjoberg
Merte
Pullmann
US 2009/0069943 Al Mar. 12, 2009
US 2009/0128079 Al May 21, 2009
US 7,783,386 B2 Aug. 24, 2010
US 7,948,391 B2 May 24, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 21-23, 25-27, 30, 31, and 35 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Akashi and Pullmann.
Claims 16, 24, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Akashi, Pullmann, and Merte.
Claims 19, 28, 29, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Akashi, Pullmann, and Sjoberg.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejections Based on Akashi and Pullmann
The Examiner finds that Akashi discloses the invention substantially
as claimed in independent claim 14, but "is silent as to the first and second
safety levels using redundant technology." Final Act. 4. 4 The Examiner
relies on Pullmann to teach this feature, concluding that it would have been
obvious to a skilled artisan to include two, varying safety levels "in order to
allow for additional flexibility in the operation and planning of the robotic
installation." Id. at 4, 5.
4 As used herein, "Final Act." refers to the Final Office Action mailed on
October 8, 2013.
3
Appeal2014-007789
Application 12/868, 184
Appellants traverse the Examiner's findings, first arguing that in its
teaching mode, "[ Akashi] discloses that commands received by the
controlling unit 102 from the teaching unit 103 may sometimes be executed
even if the detection unit 106 indicates an operator is present within the
protective safety fence 104." App. Br. 8. The Examiner answers that it is
Akashi' s automatic operation mode, in which commands are only executed
when a permissible state is indicated, that is relied upon. Ans. 3--4.
Appellants reply that "the Examiner is picking and choosing from [Akashi]
only so much of the disclosure as will support the rejection, without
consideration of the reference as a whole." Reply Br. 3--4.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. Akashi discloses two
modes of operation-a teaching mode and an automatic operation mode.
Akashi i-f 7. Akashi' s teaching mode is used to program movements the
robot will perform in the automatic operation mode, during which an open
door signal from the safety system is ignored. See Akashi i-fi-1 2, 7. We note
that Appellants disclose a similar mode of operation, in which the robot is
operable even though the protective device is not communicating a
permissible state. Spec. 6:4--12. When Akashi's robot is automatically
operated, however, power is supplied only when a permissible state is
indicated. Akashi i-fi-1 7-8. We find no error in the Examiner's reliance on
the automatic operation mode alone, as it is logical to rely on the safety
system during automated robot movement.
Appellants next argue that Akashi does not disclose operating at two
safety levels and "the Examiner provides no evidence that the battery-
powered teaching unit of [Akashi] necessarily has a lower safety level (is
4
Appeal2014-007789
Application 12/868, 184
less reliable) than a device that is not battery-powered" and "there is no
discussion in [ Akashi] or the other references of record that a wireless,
battery-powered device is necessarily less reliable than a non-battery-
powered, wired device." App. Br. 9.
As noted by the Examiner, it is the combination of Akashi and
Pullmann that form the rejection, and that Pullmann is relied on to teach
redundant safety features. Final Act. 4--5 (citing, inter alia, Pullmann 1 :57-
65); Ans. 5. Pullmann discloses:
[I]nstallations which perform automated movements are today
normally safeguarded by safety fences, light barriers, foot mats
and the like. . . . Such safety related signaling devices, which
produce and provide state signals that are relevant purely for
safeguarding the installation, are typically not evaluated using
the "standard" operational control of the installation, but rather
are supplied to a "safety controller" or in simpler cases to a
"safety switching device" ....
However, safety controllers differ from "standard"
operational controllers because they are of an intrinsically
failsafe design as a result of measures such as redundant signal
processing channels, regular self-tests and the like.
Pullmann 1:39---60 (emphasis added). Appellants' arguments regarding
wireless versus wired devices is irrelevant and unpersuasive, as Pullmann
teaches making the safety controller-be it wireless or wired-failsafe such
as by using redundant signal processing channels.
Appellants next argue that the Examiner's proffered motivation to
combine the teachings of Akashi and Pullmann is flawed because "nothing
in [Pullmann] teaches or suggests that the redundant and diverse switches 18
of [Pullmann] provide[] 'additional flexibility in the operation and planning
5
Appeal2014-007789
Application 12/868, 184
of the robot installation,' as alleged by the Examiner." App. Br. 10-11.
Rather, Appellants continue, "the Examiner's stated rationale for modifying
[Akashi] ... is merely conclusory and does not present the required
articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support a legal
conclusion of obviousness." Id. at 11.
We find Appellant's arguments to be unpersuasive. As noted by the
Examiner, Pullmann teaches that its signaling device provides flexibility,
particularly when multiple signaling devices are arranged in a series
configuration. See Ans. 6; see also Pullman 2:55---62, 3:56---60.
Additionally, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton" (KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
421 (2007)), and, thus, could readily apply the teachings of Pullmann to
other robot installations, such as that of Akashi.
Appellants' final argument in the Appeal Brief is that "incorporation
of the switches 18 and controller 20 of [Pullmann] into the system of
[Akashi] would result in a system wherein power to the robot is terminated
upon the detection of an open door signal," which, Appellants assert, "would
therefore be contrary to the principle of operation of [Akashi] because the
robot could not be operated with the teaching unit 103 even if the door 105
was in an open condition." App. Br. 11 (citing Akashi i-f 28).
We find this argument to be unpersuasive. The Examiner proposes to
modify Akashi by providing a failsafe safety signal as taught by Pullmann.
Even assuming that Akashi' s principle of operation requires its robot to be
operational in the teaching mode, it is not seen how providing a failsafe
safety signal would have any effect on the teaching mode. In other words,
6
Appeal2014-007789
Application 12/868, 184
just as Akashi' s teaching mode can override an open door signal, the
modified Akashi-Pullmann teaching mode would be able to override the
same open door signal that was delivered in a failsafe manner. Moreover,
Akashi' s safety system works in the same manner to terminate power supply
to the robot motor. Akashi i-f 6. Appellants have not convincingly apprised
us of any error.
Appellants also argue for the first time in the Reply Brief that because
"[Akashi] is directed to a robot system having only a single open-close
detection unit 106 for signaling that the fence door 105 is open,[] there is no
apparent need in [Akashi] for a series of signaling devices (switches 18) of
[Pullmann]." Reply Br. 2. We find this untimely (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.4l(b)(2)) argument to be unpersuasive, as Appellants do not point out,
nor does our review reveal, any discussion within Akashi that would
preclude the use of multiple safety sensors. Moreover, Pullmann establishes
that it is well known to use an "intrinsically failsafe design," such as by
using redundant signal processing channels, with safety fences without
limitation to safety fences having multiple door sensors. See Pullmann
1:39---60.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 14, as well as of claims 15, 17, 18, 21, and
35, each of which depends directly from claim 14 and is grouped by
Appellants with claim 14 (App. Br. 11), as being unpatentable over Akashi
and Pullmann. With respect to the rejection of independent claim 22,
Appellants rely on the arguments presented above in regard to the rejection
of claim 14. Id. at 6-12. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed
7
Appeal2014-007789
Application 12/868, 184
above, we also sustain the rejection of claim 22, as well as of claims 23, 25-
27, 30, and 31, each of which depends directly or indirectly from claim 22
and is grouped by Appellants with claim 22 (App. Br. 11 ), as being
unpatentable over Akashi and Pullmann.
The Obviousness Rejections Based on Akashi, Pullmann, and Merte
With respect to the rejection of dependent claims 16, 24, and 32,
Appellants rely on the arguments presented above in regard to the rejection
of claims 14 and 22. App. Br. 12-13. Accordingly, for the same reasons as
discussed above, we also sustain the rejection of claims 16, 24, and 32 as
being unpatentable over Akashi, Pullmann, and Merte.
The Obviousness Rejections Based on Akashi, Pullmann, and Sjoberg
With respect to the rejection of dependent claims 19, 28, 29, and 33
and independent claim 34, Appellants rely on the arguments presented above
in regard to the rejection of claims 14 and 22. App. Br. 12-13.
Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 19, 28, 29, 33, and 34 as being unpatentable over Akashi,
Pullmann, and Sjoberg.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 14--19 and 21-35 is
affirmed.
8
Appeal2014-007789
Application 12/868, 184
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
9