Ex Parte Brogardh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2018

13790530 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/790,530 03/08/2013 Torgny Brogardh
137670 7590 09/07/2018
ABB - Whitmyer IP Group LLC
600 Summer Street
Stamford, CT 06901
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.
04189-P0127A 2468
EXAMINER
TIGHE, BRENDAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TORGNY BROGARDH and
MATS ISAKSSON
Appeal2017-000107
Application 13/790,530
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-8. App. Br. 2. Appellants' counsel
presented oral argument on August 23, 2018. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the following reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-8.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates to an industrial robot including a
manipulator for movement of an object in space, where the manipulator is a
1 "The real party in interest is ABB Research Ltd." App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-000107
Application 13/790,530
parallel kinematic manipulator." Spec. ,r 1. Apparatus claim 1, the sole
independent claim, is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced
below.
1. An industrial robot including a manipulator for
movement of an object in space, where the manipulator
compnses:
a movable platform arranged for carrying the object,
a first arm arranged for influencing the platform in a first
direction and including a first inner arm part rotatable about a
first axis, a first outer arm part pivotally connected to the first
inner arm part and to the platform, and a first actuator including
a first drive shaft for actuating the first arm parts, and the first
inner arm part is directly mounted on the first drive shaft,
a second arm arranged for influencing the platform in a
second direction and including a second inner arm part rotatable
about a second axis, a second outer arm part pivotally connected
to the second inner arm part and to the platform, and a second
actuator including a second drive shaft for actuating the second
arm parts, and the second inner arm part is directly mounted on
the second drive shaft,
a third arm arranged for influencing the platform in a third
direction and including a third inner arm part rotatable about a
third axis, a third outer arm part pivotally connected to the third
inner arm part and to the platform, and a third actuator including
a third drive shaft for actuating the third arm parts, wherein the
rotation axes of the first, second and third inner arm parts are
parallel,
a hollow part operatively connected to the third drive shaft
via a transmission unit, and
a support member extending through said hollow part and
arranged to rigidly support at least one of the first and second
actuators, and the hollow part is arranged rotatable about the
support member.
2
Appeal2017-000107
Application 13/790,530
Zhang et al.
Uehara et al.
Gilchrist et al.
Kock
REFERENCES
US 2009/0266194 Al
us 5,065,062
US 2012/0232690 Al
WO 03/066289 Al
Oct. 29, 2009
Nov. 12, 1991
Sept. 13, 2012
Aug. 14, 2003
"[T]the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that drive shaft drive
arrangements were well known in the art at the time the invention was
made," referencing Gilchrist, Zhang, and Uehara as support thereof. Final
Act. 4. The Examiner also states "actuator drive shaft arrangements such as
direct drive and transmission drive were well known in the art." Ans. 3.
Appellants do not challenge either of these statements.
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Kock and Official Notice.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1---8 as
unpatentable over Kock in view of Official Notice
Claim 1 includes the limitation of first and second inner arm parts
"rotatable about" (respectively) first and second parallel axes. Claim 1
further recites first and second actuators including, respectively, first and
second drive shafts such that the first and second inner arm parts are
"directly mounted" on their respective first and second drive shafts. The
Examiner acknowledges that Kock does not "explicitly teach ... arm parts
[that] are directly mounted on actuator drive shafts" but "takes OFFICIAL
NOTICE that drive shaft drive arrangements were well known in the art."
Final Act. 3--4 (referencing Gilchrist, Zhang, and Uehara for support).
3
Appeal2017-000107
Application 13/790,530
Kock's teaching as to how its arm parts are "rotatable about" their
respective axis, and also "directly mounted" on their respective drive shaft,
is essentially limited to the following disclosure:
[ e Jach first arm part is arranged connected to the stationary
platform and is actuated by a separate actuating means.
Furthermore, actuating means is arranged to actuate only one
single supporting arm part each and not actuating any part of
the stationary platform or any other actuator.
Kock 6:11-14.
Appellants contend that in Kock, "each of the inner arm parts are
attached to a hollow part arranged rotatably about the stationary platform 6."
App. Br. 8; see also id at 9 ("all the inner arm parts are attached to a hollow
part arranged rotatable about the stationary platform 6"); Reply Br. 2. Claim
1, in contrast, recites that these inner arm parts are, instead, "directly
mounted on the first [and second] drive shaft[s]." Even assuming that
actuator drive shafts are known (see Ans. 3, 5), there is no disclosure in
Kock that the respective arms are "directly mounted" to Kock' s actuator
drive shafts. 2 Instead, Kock only depicts that these arm parts are
rotationally "attached to the column 6 through connecting means" 11, 20,
and 28 without specifying what part of the actuator such arm parts may be
connected to. Kock 10: 1-12; see also Fig. 1.
Appellants contend, "the Examiner is using Appellant's specification
as a roadmap" and, further, the Examiner "provides no evidence or
2 The Examiner acknowledges that "Kock is silent on the manner of
connection between the first inner arm part and the first actuator" ( and
repeats the same about the second inner arm part and second actuator). Ans.
2-5. In both instances, the Examiner states "that actuator drive shaft
arrangements such as direct drive and transmission drive were well known in
the art." Ans. 3, 5.
4
Appeal2017-000107
Application 13/790,530
reasoning of how a person of skill in the art would make such a
modification, or why there is a reason to do so." App. Br. 10; see also id. at
11; Reply Br. 4.
We are instructed that
common sense directs one to look with care at a patent
application that claims as innovation the combination of two
known devices according to their established functions, [and
that] it can be important to identify a reason that would have
prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention
does. This is so because inventions in most, if not all, instances
rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed
discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in
some sense, is already known.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007). We have also
been instructed that "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained
by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,988
(Fed. Cir. 2006).
Here, it appears that the Examiner has successfully identified where
certain teachings can be found in the prior art, but has provided no reason or
rationale as to the manner by which such teachings would be combined so as
to render claim 1 obvious, without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Instead, the Examiner relies on the prior knowledge of drive shaft
arrangements stating that it would have been obvious "to provide a drive
shaft drive arrangement since ... drive shaft drive arrangements were well
known." Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 3, 5. Accordingly, and lacking any
explanation or discussion of modifying Kock (in view of Official Notice) to
5
Appeal2017-000107
Application 13/790,530
involve a direct mount of an arm on a particular component of its actuator,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, or
dependent claims 2-8.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8 is reversed
REVERSED
6