Ex Parte GAO et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 5, 201512388729 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/388,729 02/19/2009 DALONG GAO P000786-RD-MJL 1988 65798 7590 05/06/2015 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 42690 WOODWARD AVENUE SUITE 300 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 EXAMINER CAMPOS, JR, JUAN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3654 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/06/2015 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 DALONG GAO and ROBIN STEVENSON 1 ____________________ Appeal 2013-003330 Application 12/388,729 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is “GM Global Technology Operations LLC.” App. Br. 3. Appeal 2013-003330 Application 12/388,729 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a “system for lifting and moving heavy parts in an assembly environment.” Spec. Abstract. More specifically, the “invention relates . . . to a system for supporting a part using a cable suspended from an overhead cart riding on a rail, where the system includes a braking device and related control for braking the cart and preventing the part from swinging on the cable.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 11, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. We select claim 1 as illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for moving a part, said system comprising: a rail; a cart including wheels that travel along the rail, said cart further including a braking device that causes the cart to brake on the rail, said cart further including a controller that controls the braking device; and a cable coupled to the cart and including a connecting device for connecting the part to the cable, wherein the controller is programmed to control the braking device in response to a command to stop the cart where the controller applies and releases the braking device such that the cart decelerates and accelerates on the rail in a manner that substantially prevents the part from swinging on the cable. App. Br. 20, Claims App’x. Appeal 2013-003330 Application 12/388,729 3 Examiner’s Rejections 2 The following rejections are before us for review. I. The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9–11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Kawashima (US 4,756,432, issued July 12, 1988). II. The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 6–13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yasunobu (US 4,717,029, issued Jan. 5, 1988) and Kawashima. III. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yasunobu, Kawashima, and Taylor (US 6,575,317 B2, issued June 10, 2003). IV. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yasunobu, Kawashima, and Singer (US 5,988,411, issued Nov. 23, 1999). ANALYSIS REJECTION I Claims 1, 2, 7, and 11 Appellants contend that Kawashima fails to disclose “where the controller applies and releases the braking device such that the cart decelerates and accelerates on the rail in a manner that substantially prevents the part from swinging on the cable” of claim 1 and the similar requirement of claim 11. App. Br. 8. Appellants further allege, “Kawashima must expressly or inherently disclose a controller that is programmed to apply and 2 The rejection of claims 1–20 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, (Final Office Action, Mar. 15, 2012) was withdrawn in the Advisory Action mailed May 14, 2012. Appeal 2013-003330 Application 12/388,729 4 release a braking device such that the cart decelerates and accelerates on a rail.” Id. at 9. The Examiner relies on Kawashima’s motor and controller as disclosing the claimed braking device and controller. See Ans. 2. Appellants do not provide any persuasive evidence or technical reasoning as to how their claimed controller is programed in a specific way that would differentiate it from the control system and microcomputer of Kawashima. We have considered Appellants’ arguments but determine that the arguments are unpersuasive inasmuch as the arguments fail to establish persuasively Kawashima does not disclose the disputed limitation. The Examiner finds Kawashima’s controller, or microcomputer (34), discloses the claimed controller because it is programmed to control the braking device as the controller applies current to both accelerate and decelerate the cart on the rail. Ans. 2, 3, 13, 14. See Kawashima Figs. 4 and 5 (microcomputer 34, motor control device 35, and motor 37 and 40). For example, the Examiner cites portions of Kawashima which disclose microcomputer (34) outputting “control signals including a command for the objective velocity VT, another command of ON/OFF for the armature current in the trolley driving motor.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 13–19. Kawashima’s controller is also programmed to control the braking device (motor) in response to a command to stop the cart such that braking device decelerates and accelerates on the rail to substantially prevent the part from swinging on the cable. See id. col. 2, ll. 2–7 (“there remain no swing after the deceleration” and “it can stop at an aimed position after it has been decelerated from a[n] objective velocity”). The findings underlying the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) are adequately supported. Because Appellants Appeal 2013-003330 Application 12/388,729 5 offer no independent argument of Examiner error for the rejection of claims 2 and 7, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 7 for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11. Claim 3 As argued by Appellants, the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of anticipation for claim 3. See App. Br. 9. We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that the features of claim 3 do not further define the structure of the claimed invention. See Ans. 14. We also disagree with the Examiner’s exclusive reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill as establishing the claimed features of claim 3. Id. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 6 and 15 Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and requires “a sensor for detecting when the part is at a desired location, said sensor providing the command to stop the cart.” Similarly, claim 15, dependent on claim 11, further requires “the controller is programmed to stop the cart when a command to stop is provided by a position sensing system.” Appellants contend Kawashima fails to disclosure both limitations. App. Br. 9–10. Appellants do not provide any persuasive evidence or technical reasoning as to how their claimed sensor for detecting and controller programmed to stop the cart differs from that disclosed in Kawashima. Id. The Examiner finds Kawashima discloses: a sensor (46 and/or 48, see figure 4) for detecting when the part is at a desired location (see column 3 line 53 to column 4 line 7, as the sensor would at least detect the present position X), the sensor (at least capable of) providing the command to stop the cart (via the controller, see figures 3[–]4). Appeal 2013-003330 Application 12/388,729 6 Ans. 3–4. We agree with the Examiner. The sensor, or mark detector (46), detects a position along the rail. Kawashima, col. 4, ll. 34–35 (“mark detector 46 for detecting position marks 48 on the rails”). The position “measurements are input into the microcomputer 34” and this position detection will trigger the command to stop from the controller based on equations calibrating the distance needed to be “traveled from the beginning of the deceleration to the stop.” Kawashima, col. 4, ll. 3–7, 59–60. Claims 9 and 10 Claim 9 requires that the part being moved by the system of claim 1 is “a part on a vehicle,” and claim 10 requires that “the part comprises an engine block.” Appellants contend because Kawashima lacks such disclosures the Examiner’s rejection is unsupported. App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds “the part” as claimed relates only to the intended use of the claimed invention. Ans. 15. Appellants do not challenge this finding. The Examiner also finds “[a]s . . . Kawashima is capable of moving various parts (such as a part of a vehicle and/or an engine block), Kawashima reads on the limitations of claims 9 and 10.” Id. We agree with the Examiner’s findings as well as the Examiner’s interpretation giving no weight to the type of part being moved. Kawashima discloses all the structural limitations of claims 9 and 10 and specifying the part being moved is only stating one intended use or purpose for the claimed invention which does not make an otherwise known system patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”). Appeal 2013-003330 Application 12/388,729 7 REJECTION II Claims 1, 2, and 7–12 Appellants challenge the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yasunobu and Kawashima “because the combination of Yasunobu and Kawashima does not disclose a controller that ‘is programmed to control the braking device in response to a command to stop the cart where the controller applies and releases the braking device such that the cart decelerates and accelerates on the rail . . . .’” App. Br. 11– 12. Specifically, Appellants contend because “Yasunobu does not even disclose a rail” it cannot disclose a controller for a braking device on a rail. Id. at 11. We disagree with Appellants first argument because the Examiner relies on Kawashima, and not Yasunobu, for the disclosure of rail. See Ans. 5. Appellants’ arguments attack Yasunobu individually but fail to address the combination, including Kawashima’s teaching of a crane control method and a trolley that travels on a rail. Id. Appellants secondly argue the combination fails to teach or disclose the claimed controller programmed as claimed. App. Br. 12. Appellants do not provide any persuasive evidence or technical reasoning as to how their claimed controller is programed in a specific way that would differentiate it from the control system of Yasunobu. See Reply Br. 2. The Examiner relies on Yasunobu’s disclosure of “a controller (3 and/or the control circuit shown in figures 2[–]4B) programmed (as the controller 3 and/or the control circuit shown in figures 2[–]4B output control commands, see column 5 lines 10[–]26) to control the braking device (as the controller turns on/applies and turns off/does not apply current. . . .” Appeal 2013-003330 Application 12/388,729 8 Ans. 16. The Examiner also finds claims 1 and 11 fail to claim a specific algorithm or software that would make the claimed controller a new machine or perform different than the system disclosed in Yasunobu. Id. at 17. We agree with the Examiner because Yasunobu’s microcomputer calculates and outputs “control commands including . . . limit value Im(t) of accelerating/decelerating current of trolley tractive motor.” Yasunobu, col. 5, ll. 10–14. Thus, Yasunobu’s controller is programmed to control the braking device (motor) in the same manner as Appellants’ claims 1 and 11. We have considered Appellants’ arguments but them unpersuasive. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is adequately supported. Because Appellants offer no independent argument of Examiner error for the rejection of claims 2, 7–10, 12, and 13, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 7–10, 12, and 13 for the same reasons as claim 1 and 11. Claim 3 Appellants contend the Examiner failed to address claim 3’s requirement “the braking device includes operating the motor in a reverse direction.” App. Br. 13. The Examiner relies on the knowledge of a person of “ordinary skill in the art to reverse the polarity of the motor to operate the motor in the reverse direction.” Ans. 17–18. Appellants’ fail to offer any rebuttal that reversing the polarity of a motor to operate the motor in a reverse direction is within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that it was common knowledge to a person of ordinary skill in the art to reverse the polarity of the motor to operate the motor in the reverse direction. See, e.g., Kawashima, col. 5, ll. 59–62 (“The deceleration of step 411 is performed with the . . . negative Appeal 2013-003330 Application 12/388,729 9 limit armature current” and one of skill in the art would understand supplying negative armature current rotates a motor in a reverse direction.). Based on the above, we agree the combination of art teaches or suggests operating the motor in a reverse direction. Claims 6 and 15 Appellants argue claims 6 and 15 together. App. Br. 14. Appellants contend Yasunobu fails to teach or suggest Appellants’ claimed sensor because Yasunobu only discloses “a position mark of a rail, and mark detector 61 of Yasunobu is used to obtain the current position X(t) on the basis of the travel distance of the trolley from the original mark.” App. Br. 14 (citation omitted). The Examiner finds Yasunobu discloses that sensor 61 provides a command (such as a condition signal to the controller) to stop the cart. Ans. 18. We agree. As depicted in Figure 3 and described in Yasunobu, mark detector 61, determines current position on the rail based on position marks 62. See Yasunobu, col. 5, ll. 29–30, 37–40. The current position is then used to determine the predicted stop position, which is compared to an objective stop position to determine the deceleration needed to stop. Id. at col. 7, ll. 3–31 (“step 112 to stop the trolley . . . is executed”). REJECTIONS III and IV Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejections of independent claim 17 and dependent claims 4, 5, 14, 16, and 18–20 are erroneous for reasons similar to those that Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1, 6, 11, and 15 are erroneous. See App. Br. 14–18. Inasmuch as we are not persuaded by any of Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 1, 6, 11, and 15 (see App. Br. Appeal 2013-003330 Application 12/388,729 10 11–14), we sustain the rejections of independent claim 17 and claims 4, 5, 14, 16, and 18–20. CONCLUSION We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9–11, and 15, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We reverse the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We affirm the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. Because we affirm at least one rejection of each pending claim, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 (a)(1). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED rvb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation