Ex Parte Glueckhardt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2018

13262778 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2018)

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.
13/262,778 10/03/2011 Reimund Glueckhardt 2009P05886 3932
27350 7590 01/30/2018
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
Box SA
P.O. BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, EL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
LE, MARK T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2018 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):
boxsa@patentusa.com
docket @ paten tusa. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REIMUND GLUECKHARDT, JUERGEN MOSER, and
HANS-ERHARD SCHMIDT
Appeal 2016-004473
Application 13/262,778
Technology Center 3600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants have filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(1) (hereafter “Request”) on November 20, 2017 for
reconsideration of our Decision mailed September 19, 2017 (hereafter
“Decision”). We reconsider our Decision in light of Appellants’ Request,
but we decline to change the Decision.
Appeal 2016-004473
Application 13/262,778
ANALYSIS
Appellants essentially repeat arguments previously provided in the
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own. Decision 3. A request
for rehearing is not an opportunity to reargue points merely because
Appellants do not agree with the result of the Board’s Decision. Moreover,
a request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to
have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(1). Accordingly, we focus our analysis on Appellants’
contentions and arguments directed to alleged error by the Board.
Appellants contend “the points which have been overlooked or
misapprehended by the Board . . . should lead to the conclusion that a
combination of the Terada,1 Simms2 and Wunderlv3 references would not
teach [various as recited in claim 16.” Request OjL.
Appellants contend
There is no evidence at all in the cited prior art, that a robot arm
is a suitable way of connecting a marine vessel to polyphase
land supply system or how the robot of Terada could be utilized
to do so, even if an ordinarily skilled artisan had decided to
switch off the robot arm. Therefore, Terada cannot be used as a
starting point for a jointed arm which is able to compensate for
any movement as recited in claim 16 of the instant application.
The robotic arm of Terada may support cables for using tools,
but there is no disclosure in Terada or in the three combined
references to connect a land supply system to a marine vessel as
recited in claim 16.
1 Terada et al., US 6,250,174 Bl, issued June 26, 2001 (“Terada”).
2 Simms et al., US 5,036,754, issued Aug. 6, 1991 (“Simms”).
3 Wunderly et al., US 2002/0064444 Al, published May 30, 2002
(“Wunderly”).
2
Appeal 2016-004473
Application 13/262,778
Request 2.
As set forth in the Decision, the Examiner relies on two alternative
rejections for independent claim 16. Decision 4. First, the Examiner rejects
claim 16 over the combination of Terada, Simms, Wunderly, and Anhalt.4
Final Act. 2—3. Alternatively, the Examiner rejects claim 16 over the
combination of Terada, Simms, Wunderly, Anhalt, and WO.5 Final Act. 5—
6. In both the Appeal and Reply Briefs, as well as in this Request,
Appellants do not present separate arguments for the alternative rejections,
but rather focus their arguments solely on the rejection over Terada, Simms,
Wunderly, and Anhalt.
Appellants’ arguments against Terada alone ignore the WO reference,
as applied in the alternative rejection, which is explicitly directed to “a
device (1) for electrically connecting a multi-phase ship distribution network
(14) to a multi-phase land supply network (2), said device comprising a
connection unit for connecting the land supply network (2).” WO, Abstract.
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument that “[tjhere is no evidence at all in the
cited prior art, that a robot arm is a suitable way of connecting a marine
vessel to polyphaser land supply system” is not persuasive. However, even
against the rejection solely over Terada, Simms, Wunderly, and Anhalt, we
agree with the Examiner’s findings that “there are no significant differences
between the intended use of the structure of Terada for an industrial
application and the proposed use for a marine application.” See Ans. 8—9;
see also Ans. 7.
Appellants further argue:
4 Anhalt et al., US 3,950,059, issued Apr. 13, 1976 (“Anhalt”).
5 Schmidt et al., WO 2006/079636 Al, published Aug. 3, 2006 (“Schmidt”).
3
Appeal 2016-004473
Application 13/262,778
If one of ordinary skill in the art would consider switching off
the robotic arm of Terada, the robotic arm of Terada would
simply drop into an undesired position. Therefore, any
ordinarily skilled artisan would either use a parking position or
a kind of freezing of the arm when switched off. Since there is
nothing disclosed in Terada concerning this topic, combining
Terada’s robotic arm with Simms’ slip clutch would lead to a
freezing position from which it could be removed by applying
a predefined force, which can be learned by reading Simms at
column 6, lines 33 to 35 and Wunderly at page 1, paragraph
[0010],
Those actions of the combined references are not the same as
the claimed “jointed arm ...for compensating movements of the
marine vessel” recited in claim 16 of the instant application and
as explained on page 6, lines 5 to 9 of the Specification of the
instant application, that is a freely pivoting movement of a
crane arm segment.
Regarding the comments in the first paragraph on page 5 of the
Board Decision, it is noted that any pivoting compensation for
movements of a marine vessel must, by nature, be free pivoting
because the marine vessel will move freely and unpredictably in
the water due to not only tidal changes but the movements of
other vessels and the wind and weather.
Therefore, even combining the three references would not lead
to a freely pivoting arm, able to compensate the movement of a
marine vessel in the water. This evidence can be found in the
references cited by the Examiner and the originally filed
disclosure as mentioned above.
Request 3—4, emphasis added.
As set forth in the Decision (Decision 5), Appellants’ arguments are
not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which does not recite “freely
pivoting movement” or a “freely pivoting movement of a crane arm
segment.” Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner’s findings that the
4
Appeal 2016-004473
Application 13/262,778
movements of a marine vessel, as defined in the instant claim,
is broad enough to also cover slight movements when the vessel
is docked in calm water such that he slip-clutches in the robot
arm of Terada, as modified, would be even much more capable
of such slight movement compensation.
Ans. 7.
Moreover, as also set forth in the Decision (Decision 5), Appellants’
arguments are conclusory attorney argument, which does not take the place
of evidence. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). For
example, Appellants’ assertions that “any pivoting compensation for
movements of a marine vessel must, by nature, be free pivoting because the
marine vessel will move freely and unpredictably in the water due to not
only tidal changes but the movements of other vessels and the wind and
weather” is not supported by the evidence of record. Request 3. Nor are
Appellants’ assertions of what one of ordinary skill in the art would do.
Again, as well, we note Appellants do not address the combination as
applied with the WO reference, which is explicitly directed to connecting a
marine vessel to land, under the Examiner’s alternative rejection.
DECISION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we deny Appellants’ Request for
Rehearing.
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).
REHEARING DENIED
5