Ex Parte Byrne

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

10583983 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 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.
10/583,983 02/16/2011 Gisle Byrne 43315-232461 8443
26694 7590
VENABLE LLP
P.O. BOX 34385
WASHINGTON, DC 20043-9998
EXAMINER
SOOFI, YAZAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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):
PTOMail@Venable.com
cavanhouten@venable.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GISLE BYRNE
Appeal 2015-002315
Application 10/583,983
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
8, 10, 12, 16—35, and 38—41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-002315
Application 10/583,983
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a control method, device, system and
computer program product for robot applications. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for controlling a plurality of robots carrying out an
operation on one or more work objects in a common workspace,
wherein instructions for a plurality of movements are recorded in
a program controlling each of said robots, the method
comprising:
defining the plurality of movements as a plurality of tasks,
controlling with a controller each of the plurality of robots
dependent upon whether any other of the plurality of robots in
the common workspace is proceeding as predetermined,
according to a sensed or measured common reference value,
checking with a processor a value for a common reference for
the plurality of robots before a start of a next task, and providing
with the controller a signal to the plurality of robots to stop and
wait at an end of a present task if the common reference value is
not within acceptable limits.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—8, 10, 12, 16—28, and 30-35 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Otera (US 5,204,942, iss. Apr. 20, 1993).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Otera and Lathan (US 6,895,305 B2, iss. May 17, 2005).
Claims 38—41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Otera, and Clifford (US 2004/0115360 Al, pub. June 17,
2004).
2
Appeal 2015-002315
Application 10/583,983
OPINION
The sole contested aspect of the anticipation rejection is that “[tjhere
is nothing in Otera et al. that discloses a common reference value and
controlling movement based upon whether a common reference value is
within a certain limit.” Br. 14. In both the Final Action and the Examiner’s
Answer, the Examiner cites, and quotes from, a passage in column 2 of
Otera explaining the use of respective robot set positions Pi, P2 as a “sensed
or measured” indication checked to determine whether robots Ra, Rb, operate
or wait. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4; see Otera, col. 2,11. 50-67; e.g., Otera Fig. 8.1
These set positions are what the Examiner regards as “common reference
value[s]” according to the claims. We are mindful that, according to the
specific embodiments disclosed in Appellant’s Specification, one example of
something that may be a “common reference value” is a “position of the
work object.” Spec. 9:28—35. However, it is well-settled that claims are not
necessarily limited to cover only the embodiments disclosed. Here
Appellant chose to recite broader terminology, “a common reference value”
than used in the Specification. We are not apprised of any reason why a
position (i.e., either Pi or P2) measured or sensed to check for a robot’s
presence at, or deviation therefrom, and provide a value that each robot must
consider in determining whether to operate or wait, is not reasonably
1 It is noted that Otera does not provide an accompanying time chart for the
Figure 10 embodiment cited by the Examiner similar to the time chart
provided in Figure 8. Figure 8 nevertheless helps visualize the movement of
the robots Ra and Rb as discussed with regard to Figure 10, with the
exception that two additional robots Rc and Rd are present and Rc operates in
place of Ra’s second operation in the embodiment specifically illustrated in
Figure 8.
3
Appeal 2015-002315
Application 10/583,983
regarded as a “common reference value.” This is particularly true in light of
the fact that Appellant does not present any arguments addressing the
Examiner’s uncontroverted position on this point. See Br. 13—15.
Appellant’s remaining arguments are premised only on dependency.
Br. 16-18.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4