Ex Parte Bosga et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

12278389 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/278,389 08/05/2008 Sjoerd Bosga
26694 7590 06/30/2016
VENABLELLP
P.O. BOX 34385
WASHINGTON, DC 20043-9998
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.
43315-261596 1183
EXAMINER
BOOKER, KELVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
PTOMail@Venable.com
lahill@venable.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SJOERD BOSGA and
MARC SEGURA GOLORONS
Appeal2015-002195
Application 12/278,389 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-8, 10-65, 67, and 68. Claims 9 and 66 have been
withdrawn from consideration.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ABB Research Ltd,
App. Br. 2.
2 Final Act., Summary.
Appeal2015-002195
Application 12/278,389
STATEMENT OF THE CASE3
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates to "a press line of
the type used for pressings, stamping, drawing or punching of principally
metal parts from blanks. In particular, the invention discloses a press line
comprising an improved mechanical press that may be synchronized with
other devices in the press line in a dynamic or adaptive way." Spec. 1
("TECHNICAL FIELD").
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (labeling added to contested limitations):
1. A method for operating a press line comprising at
least one mechanical press with at least one electric drive
motor, a ram, a mechanical element for operating said press,
and at least one other device for loading; unloading or pressing;
wherein the other device is any from the group of a loader, an
unloader, a robot, or another press, the method comprising:
[L 1] synchronizing a movement of the at least one
mechanical press to a movement or position of the at least one
other device in the press line during at least one pressing or
non-pressing part of a press cycle, wherein the synchronizing
comprises controlling and varying a speed of said at least one
electric drive motor in a continuous, dynamic or adaptive
manner; and
3 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
May 27, 2014); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 1, 2014); Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 23, 2013); and the original
Specification ("Spec.," filed Aug. 5, 2008).
2
Appeal2015-002195
Application 12/278,389
[L2] synchronizing an unloader device or first robot
during at least a part of the press cycle as a slave to the at least
one mechanical press, synchronizing a loader device or second
robot as a slave to the unloader device or first robot, and
synchronizing said at least one mechanical press as a slave to
the loader device or second robot.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Aoshima US 2004/0003729 Al Jan. 8, 2004
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-8, 10-65, 67, and 68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aoshima. Ans. 2.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 22----25), we decide the
appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 1-8, 10-65, 67, and 68 on the
basis of representative claim 1.
ISSUE
Appellants argue (App. Br. 22-25) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the cited prior art is in error.
These contentions present us with the following issue:
Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art teaches
or at least suggests limitations L 1 and L2, as recited in claim 1?
3
Appeal2015-002195
Application 12/278,389
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief so that
we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 1, and
we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and
(2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response
to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons, and
rebuttals herein by reference, unless otherwise noted. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for
emphasis as follows.
Limitation LI
With respect to limitation L 1, Appellants contend:
Aoshima only suggests synchronizing a speed of sub
motor 25 to the speed of the main motor 15 of a single press.
Aoshima does not suggest synchronizing movement of different
elements of a press line with each other. Thus, Aoshima does
not suggest during at least one pressing or non-pressing portion
of a press cycle synchronizing movement of a mechanical press
to movement or position of another device in a press line,
synchronizing other elements of a press line with the
mechanical press or with each other, controlling and varying a
speed of a motor.
App. Br. 23.
The issue presented turns on the claim construction of the claim terms
"devices" of "mechanical press( es)," as recited in claim 1.
4
Appeal2015-002195
Application 12/278,389
vVe note, "[i]n the patentability context, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretations ... limitations are not to be read into the
claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Any special meaning assigned to a term
"must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from
common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the
field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133
F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Absent an express intent to impaii a novel
meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary
meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-
Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(citation om ittecn. ' - - - /
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because they are not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Under a broad but reasonable
interpretation; we find the scope of disputed limitation LI; "synchronizing
... one mechanical press to ... at least one other device in the press line ...
wherein the synchronizing comprises controlling and varying the speed of
said at least one electric drive motor," reads on Aoshima's synchronizing the
speed of main motor 15 and sub motor 25. We agree with the Examiner's
claim interpretation that claim 1 's "one mechanical press with at least one
electric drive motor" does not preclude two motors. Ans. 20, Final Act. 4.
Appellants also contend, regarding limitation L 1:
The Examiner asserts that Aoshima suggests varying a
speed of a motor as recited in the claims, citing paragraphs
0036 and 0037. However, these paragraphs simply suggest that
a controller sets the speed of the motor in response to a speed
instruction. Aoshima suggests in paragraph 0048 that each stage
5
Appeal2015-002195
Application 12/278,389
has a preset motor speed. This contradicts the Examiner's
assertion that the speed of the motor is variable.
App. Br. 24--25.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, because they are
again not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. We find the recitation of
"synchronizing comprises controlling and varying a speed of said at least
one electric drive motor in a continuous, dynamic or adaptive manner" reads
on Aoshima's teaching of a controllable speed motor because the
controllable speeds of Aoshima's main motor 15 and submotor 25 teach or at
least suggest "controlling and varying a speed of said at least one electric
drive motor." Aoshima i-fi-136-40.
Limitation L2
Appellants further contend, regarding limitation L2:
Additionally, Aoshima does not suggest synchronizing a
loader, unloader or robots as recited in claims 1, 36 and 65.
Aoshima only suggests in paragraph 0055 that a transfer feeder
may be present if the press is used as a transfer press. Aoshima
also suggests in paragraph 0055 that it is possible to "cope with
the speed required by the transfer feeder". This suggests a fixed
transfer feeder speed. Aoshima does not suggest the elements of
the press line recited in claims 1, 3 6 and 65 or the
synchronization of those elements.
App. Br. 25.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Aoshima teaches the
"synchronizing" step L2 including a "mechanical press," an "unloader device
or first robot," and an "loader device or second robot." Ans. 20-21, Final
Act. 4--5. In further support of the Examiner's findings, we specifically find
Aoshima's workpiece carrying robot teaches or at least suggests the
"unloader" claim limitation (Aoshima i154), and Aoshima's transfer feeder
6
Appeal2015-002195
Application 12/278,389
teaches or at least suggests the "loader" claim limitation. Aoshima if 55. We
also find Aoshima's synchronous operation of the whole press line being
sped up teaches or at least suggests "synchronizing" limitation L2. Aoshima
ir 54.
We note Appellants have not cited to an explicit definition of
mechanical press, loader device, unloader device, or robot in the
Specification that would preclude the Examiner's broader reading.
We find Appellants' invention is simply a combination of familiar
elements that when combined, at the time of the invention, would have
realized a predictable result. Moreover, on this record, Appellants have
provided no evidence that combining such teachings was "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art," (Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)),
nor have Appellants presented evidence that this incorporation yielded more
than expected results. Further, Appellants have not provided objective
evidence of secondary considerations which our reviewing court guides
"operates as a beneficial check on hindsight." Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak
Cheese and Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
We also note Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief to rebut the
Examiner's factual findings and legal conclusions regarding the teachings
and suggestions of the cited prior art.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art to teach or
suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the
Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
7
Appeal2015-002195
Application 12/278,389
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2-8,
10-65, 67, and 68 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the obviousness rejection of
claims 1-8, 10-65, 67 and 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior
art of record, and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-65, 67,
and 68.
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
8