Ex Parte Fritsch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

12096228 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 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.
12/096,228 08/05/2008 Uwe Fritsch KLAB-14 9899
26875 7590 02/23/2017
WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
KONG, SZE-HON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 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):
usptodock@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UWE FRITSCH and
WALTER HONEGGER
Appeal 2015-002634
Application 12/096,228
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LISA M. GUIJT, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 27-43 and 47—53. App. Br. 1. Claims 1—26 and 44-46
have been canceled. App. Br. 16, 21 (Claims Appendix). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-002634
Application 12/096,228
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to a method for moving a camera
disposed on a pan/tilt head along a given trajectory, especially on a set or in
a studio.” Spec. I.1 Claims 27, 43, and 53 are independent claims. Claim
27 is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below.
27. A method for moving a first camera along a
predefined trajectory, the first camera being supported on a
pan/tilt head coupled to a first robot, the first robot including
shafts for articulating the first robot about six different axes of
rotation, the method comprising:
determining spatial positions and orientations of the first
camera along the trajectory, the spatial positions and
orientations corresponding to spatial coordinates and rotations
in a Cartesian coordinate reference system;
generating control variables for the shafts of the robot
about the six axes of rotation corresponding to the spatial
positions and orientations of the first camera along the
trajectory; and
moving the shafts of the robot based on the control
variables such that the pan/tilt head is articulated about the six
axes for movement along the trajectory.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
West US 5,186,270 Feb. 16, 1993
Edwards US 5,457,370 Oct. 10, 1995
Hashimukai US 6,401,011 B1 June 4, 2002
Ambrose US 6,595,704 B2 July 22, 2003
Sawada US 2004/0210347 A1 Oct. 21,2004
Chapman US 2005/0191050 A1 Sept. 1,2005
Wang US 8,077,963 B2 Dec. 13,2011
1 Appellants’ Specification does not provide line or paragraph numbering.
Accordingly, reference to the Specification will only be made via the page
number.
2
Appeal 2015-002634
Application 12/096,228
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 27—29, 35, 36, 39-43, 47, 48, 50, 51, and 53 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang, Ambrose, and Chapman.
Claims 30-32, 37, 38, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wang, Ambrose, Chapman, and Edwards.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Wang, Ambrose, Chapman, Edwards, and Sawada.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Wang, Ambrose, Chapman, and Hashimukai.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Wang, Ambrose, Chapman, and West.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 27—29, 35, 36, 39—43, 47, 48, 50, 51, and 53 as
unpatentable over Wang, Ambrose, and Chapman
Appellants argue these claims together.2 App. Br. 7—13. We select
claim 27 for review, with the remaining claims standing or falling with claim
27. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner primarily relies on the teachings of Wang as disclosing
the limitations of claim 27. Final Act. 5—6. However, the Examiner
acknowledges that Wang “does not specifically disclose the first robot is
articulating [about] six axes of rotation” because, as per the Examiner, Wang
only teaches “at least four degree[s] of freedom.” Final Act. 6.
2 Appellants separately recite the limitations of independent claims 43 and
53 stating that these claims “are in condition for allowance for reasons
similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 27.” App. Br. 12.
3
Appeal 2015-002634
Application 12/096,228
Nevertheless, the Examiner states that it is well known “to design robot and
robotic arms/manipulators with high degree[s] of freedom” and that “the
concept of the number of degree [s] of freedom is very well-known in the
art.”3 Final Act. 6. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that “it is an obvious
design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the robot with
any number of degree[s] of freedom as necessary or desire[d].” Final Act. 6.
Appellants challenge the Examiner’s “design choice” rationale. App.
Br. 8—9; see also Reply Br. 3. Appellants state, “there must be some reason
for changing the design, driven by some particular need or purpose.” App.
Br. 8; see also id. at 10-12; Reply Br. 3. However, the Examiner explained
that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Wang and
Ambrose in order to achieve a robotically driven camera with multiple
linkages “for high mobility, accurate and higher number of positions the
robot and camera can achieve in the system.” Final Act. 7. In short, there is
no dispute that articulating a robot “about six different axes of rotation” (as
claimed) is known. See Final Act. 6, 7; see also Ambrose Figs. 11—15 and
6:60-61 (“In the exemplary embodiment, the arm is reconfigurable from
four to seven degrees of freedom”); Chapman | 67 (discussing “camera
movement about pan, tilt, and roll axes” and further, “other camera support
plates, risers, drop downs or accessories may be attached”). As such,
Appellants do not explain how the Examiner’s rejection based on “design
choice” is faulty when the Examiner’s rejection is premised on it already
being known to rotate about six different axes (see Ambrose Fig. 14 and
3 In this regard, the Examiner references both Ambrose and Chapman
finding that each disclose a robot having “at least six degrees of freedom.”
Final Act. 6, 7.
4
Appeal 2015-002634
Application 12/096,228
6:67—7:6) with the motivation being to combine such known teachings with
Wang in order to achieve greater mobility, accuracy, and positioning of the
camera. Final Act. 6—7. Furthermore, Appellants do not explain how the
selection of six different axes as claimed achieves an unexpected result.4
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s reliance on
“design choice” (directed to the selection of a specific number of axes) is not
persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants also argue that Wang’s assembly “is not articulated to
move the camera 38 along a predefined trajectory” as required. App. Br. 9;
see also id. at 10—11; Reply Br. 2-4. The Examiner’s position is that “it is
very well-known [that] robotic system[s] provide repeating accuracy in their
movement and trajectories” and that “[o]ne of the purposes for having [a]
robotic system is to provide repeating accuracy for performing different
tasks.” Final Act. 7. Appellants do not indicate how the Examiner erred in
stating that robotic systems are known to have repetitive movements, or
move “along a predefined trajectory,” as claimed.5 In view of the above,
4 See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“design choice” is
appropriate where the applicant fails “to set forth any reasons why the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a
different function or give unexpected results”) [citing In re Rice, 341 F.2d
309 (CCPA 1965) (“Appellants have failed to show that the change [in the
claimed invention] as compared to [the reference], result in a difference in
function or give unexpected results”)].
5 Further, the Examiner states “Wang in fact does articulate the camera along
a predefined trajectory.” Ans. 3. Wang teaches, “[i]n general the robot may
have a number of different mapping schemes and relative, dependent or
independent, movement between the camera, the platform and drive
direction.” Wang 5:21—23; see also Wang 5:27-43.
5
Appeal 2015-002634
Application 12/096,228
Appellants are not persuasive of Examiner error regarding the limitation
directed to movement “along a predefined trajectory.”
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 27—29, 35, 36, 39-43, 47, 48, 50, 51, and 53
as being unpatentable over Wang, Ambrose, and Chapman.
The rejection of claims 30—32, 37, 38, and 49
as unpatentable over Wang, Ambrose, Chapman, and Edwards
Appellants argue claims 30—32, 37, 38, and 49 together. App. Br. 13.
We select claim 30 for review, with claims 31, 32, 37, 38, and 49 standing or
falling with claim 30.
Appellants first contend that claim 30 is allowable “for at least the
reasons discussed above with respect to claims 27 and 43.” App. Br. 13.
This contention is not persuasive for the reasons presented above.
Appellants also contend that the additional recitation to Edwards in rejecting
claim 30 (Final Act. 10) “fails to cure the deficiencies of Wang 963,
Ambrose 704, and Chapman 050 discussed above.” App. Br. 13—14. This is
because Edwards “does not teach or suggest a robot having shafts for
articulating about six different axes of rotation.” App. Br. 14. However,
Edwards was not relied on for this reason (see Final Act. 10) and, as such,
Appellants’ contention is not persuasive.
The Examiner relied on Edwards for disclosing that the trajectory of
the camera “is defined by a simulation system of a virtual set” at a studio.
Final Act. 10. Edwards discusses applying to the camera the “physical
effect of violent vibration as might be experienced if the camera is
simulating earthquake conditions” and that providing “additional means of
control opens up the control possibilities to the limits of the operator’s
6
Appeal 2015-002634
Application 12/096,228
imagination.” Edwards 10:43—52. The Examiner further states that
“generating simulated environment and model of various objects and spaces
are very well-known in the art.” Ans. 6.
Appellants argue that the Specification “defines the term ‘virtual
studio’ as one ‘in which real backdrops and sets are replaced, or at least
augmented, by computer-generated images.’” App. Br. 14 (referencing
Spec. 13); see also Reply Br. 4. As such, Appellants contend, “the
graphical user interface display 38 of Edwards 370 is not a ‘simulation
system of a virtual set of studio,’ as set forth in claim 30.” App. Br. 14; see
also Reply Br. 4. Appellants do not explain how Edwards fails to teach the
simulation of an earthquake or how generating simulated environments is
not already known in the art. See supra. Instead, Appellants reassert “that
the phrase ‘virtual set or studio’ is recited in claim 30, and that this term is
specifically defined in the written description.” Reply Br. 4. We agree that
this phrase is recited and defined as asserted, but Appellants fail to explain
how the claimed simulation is not taught by Edwards and/or already known
in the art. Accordingly, Appellants’ contentions regarding the Examiner’s
additional reliance on Edwards is not persuasive of Examiner error. We
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30-32, 37, 38, and 49.
The rejection of (a) claim 33 is rejected as unpatentable over Wang,
Ambrose, Chapman, Edwards, and Sawada; (b) claim 34 as unpatentable
over Wang, Ambrose, Chapman, and Hashimukai; and, (c) claim 52 as
unpatentable over Wang, Ambrose, Chapman, and West
Regarding the separate rejection of each of these claims, Appellants
contend that the additionally cited art (i.e., Sawada, Hashimukai, and West)
“fail to cure the deficiencies of’ Wang, Ambrose, and Chapman. App. Br.
14. Appellants’ contention is not persuasive because we are not in
7
Appeal 2015-002634
Application 12/096,228
agreement with Appellants that Wang, Ambrose, and Chapman are deficient
for the purposes they were relied upon. See Final Act. 5—7. Appellants also
contend that Sawada and Hashimukai fail to teach a limitation found in
parent claim 27 and that West fails to teach a limitation found in parent
claim 43. App. Br. 15. Sawada, Hashimukai, and West were not relied on
for these reasons (see Final Act. 13—14) and, as such, Appellants’
contentions are not persuasive the Examiner erred in relying on these
additional references for the reasons stated.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 33, 34, and 52.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 27-43 and 47—53 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8