Ex Parte Ekelund et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 8, 201613119435 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/119,435 95002 7590 Seppo Laine Oy ltamerenkatu 3 A Helsinki, FI00180 FINLAND FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 03/17/2011 Anders 0. Ekelund 06/09/2016 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. ABB 67US 1635 EXAMINER RUSSELL, RICHARD M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2618 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 06/09/2016 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 ANDERS 0. EKELUND and STEVE MURPHY Appeal2014-008764 Application 13/119,435 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants2 seek our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of Claims 1-10 as being unpatentable. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Mar. 14, 2014 ("Br."); the Examiner's Answer June 9, 2014 ("Ans."); and the original Specification filed Mar. 17, 2011 ("Spec."). 2 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is ABB Technology LTD. Br. 2. 3 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appeal2014-008764 Application 13/119,435 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' iinvention relate to a robot teach pendant coupled to a controller and a graphical user interface. See Abstract. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A robot teach pendant unit coupled to a programmable robot controller, the teach pendant comprising; a graphical screen and a native user interface program configured to create a graphical user interface and to display the user interface on the graphical screen, a processing component configured to receive an application including one or more animated graphical objects, instructions for displaying the animated objects on the graphical screen, information on the behavior of the animated graphical objects and instructions on how the user can interact with the animated graphical objects, wherein the processing component is further configured to set up at least one sandbox for a received application, said sandbox providing an isolation mechanism for safely running the application without disturbing the execution of normal teach pendant operations, wherein the processing component is further configured to control user interaction and display of the animated graphical objects on the screen within the set up sandbox, and wherein said user interface program is configured to host the processing component and to instruct the processing component to load and display the application containing the animated graphical objects. References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Celi, Jr. et al. us 6,157,933 Dec. 5, 2000 2 Appeal2014-008764 Application 13/119,435 ("Celi") Krause et al. US 6,560,513 B2 May 6, 2003 ("Krause") Lim et al. US 2008/0025387 Al Jan. 31, 2008 ("Lim") Brantmark et al. US 2008/0091301 Al Apr. 17, 2008 ("Brantmark") Ferry et al. US 2008/0307341 Al Dec. 11, 2008 ("Ferry") Ellis US 7 ,506,020 B2 Mar. 17, 2009 The Claims stand rejected as follows: 1. Claims 1-5 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krause, Ellis, Celi, and Brantmark. Ans. 4--10. 2. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krause, Ellis, Celi, Brantmark, and Lim. Ans. 10-11. 3. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krause, Ellis, Celi, Brantmark, and Ferry. Ans. 12. 3 Appeal2014-008764 Application 13/119,435 ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Examiner has used impermissible hindsight in combining the secondary references with primary reference Krause, outlined in Appellants' Specification. Br. 9. Appellants conclude the Examiner has taken knowledge from Appellants' Specification for the rejection by choosing references that address the faults that Appellants find in Krause to teach the missing elements of Claim 1. Br. 9. Appellants further dispute the Examiner's reason to combine the sandbox of Ellis with the other references based on secure program execution techniques to enhance user safety. Br. 10. Specifically, Appellants contend "there is no actually running of an application within the modified teach pendant of Krause, Brantmark, and Celi in the context of the claims, only the display of a web browser." Br. 10. Appellants further conclude there is no need for a sandbox to be combined with Krause, Brantmark, and Celi to display a web browser. Br. 10. The Examiner responds that Appellants have not identified how Appellants' Specification was relied upon in the Examiner's reason to combine the references. Ans. 14. We disagree. Appellants' Specification describes a need to run a loaded application in a restricted environment where it cannot impact the rest of the teach pendant, other devices, and connected robot. Spec. p. 3, 1. 34-p. 4, 1. 2. This motivation is consistent with the Examiner's rationale to combine the sandbox of Ellis with the other references. Ans. 8 ("[T]he known, secure-execution environment of Ellis with the teach pendant of Krause in view of Trantmark and Celi provides improved user safety."). The Examiner finds Krause teaches a "safety- conscious robot environment" and that Ellis teaches "a more secure means to operate" in such an environment. Ans. 14 (citing Krause col. 5, 1. 42). 4 Appeal2014-008764 Application 13/119,435 However, the cited teaching of Krause is directed to safety of the operator of the robot, not to a secure environment for the execution of software, such as is provided by a sandbox. See Krause col. 5, 11. 40-42 ("The teach pendant 112 includes an emergency stop switch 502 and a deadman switch 504 which are needed to secure the safety of an operator."). We are persuaded that the Examiner has not adequately explained a reason to include a sandbox in Krause for a standard applet or plug-in used to display requested data on a browser. See Br. 10. We thus find the Examiner has not provided sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning, supported by evidence in the record, for the proposed incorporation of Ellis' sandbox for a secure execution environment for downloaded code into the operator-safety- secured teach pendant of Krause in view of Trantmark and Celi. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1. We further decline to sustain the rejection of claims depending from Claim 1. DECISION The rejection of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation