Ex Parte Brookes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2016

13097450 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/097,450 04/29/2011
45113 7590 05/18/2016
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven J. Brookes
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.
2010P08330 USOl 6536
EXAMINER
HANN,JAYB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2016 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN J. BROOKES, PETER A. KNIGHT, and
IAN J. MORRISON
Appeal2014-003533
Application 13/097,450
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-003533
Application 13/097,450
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites "identifying any of the under-defined
geometries that are under-defined due to singular (UDS) by the data
processing system." The other independent claims (claims 6 and 11) recite
similar limitations. The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable, claims 1-5 over Bolon 1 and claims 6-15 over
Bolon and Deslandes2.
Appellants assert their specification defines "under-defined due to
singular" as "a geometry or set that is under-defined yet has a zero constraint
balance with respect to its support and should therefore generally be well-
defined by the constraints (including dimensions) to its supports." App. Br.
19 (citing Spec. i-f 14). Appellants argue neither Bolon nor Deslandes
teaches or suggests geometries that are "under-defined due to singular" as
defined in Appellants' specification. See App. Br. 20-26; Reply Br. 9-17.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of the evidence
presented and Appellants' arguments. We agree with Appellants that the
Examiner erred. The Examiner found Bolon discloses identifying
"singularities" and that "[i]dentifying singularities is identifying UDS"
because"[ s ]ingularity as a term used within Bolon can refer to situations
where underconstrained or overconstrained geometries result." Ans. 4--5.
But as argued by Appellants, Appellants' specification defines "under-
defined due to singular" as "a geometry or set that is under-defined yet has a
zero constraint with respect to its supports and should therefore generally be
well-defined by constraints (including dimensions) to its supports." Spec.
1 US 5,410,496; April 25, 1995.
2 US 8,248,407 B2; August 21, 2012.
2
Appeal2014-003533
Application 13/097,450
il 14. The Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or reasoning to
establish that identifying singularities teaches or suggests identifying
geometries that are "under-defined due to singular" as defined in Appellants'
specification. Nor has the Examiner established Deslandes remedies this
deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of
independent claims 1, 6, and 11 or their respective dependent claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-15.
REVERSED
3