Ex Parte Halsmer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

13080696 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 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.
13/080,696 04/06/2011 Matthew Halsmer 10-3000-US 2331
27182 7590 03/28/2017
PRAXAIR, INC.
LAW DEPARTMENT
10 RIVERVIEW DRIVE
DANBURY, CT 06810-5113
EXAMINER
OH, HARRY Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2017 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 MATTHEW HALSMER
____________________

Appeal 2015-004742
Application 13/080,696
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Matthew Halsmer (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–12, 15, and 16.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellant submits the real party in interest is Praxair S.T. Technology, Inc.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-004742
Application 13/080,696

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention “involves robot programming systems and
methods for industrial robots and robot simulators at different locations
including, for example, off-line robot programming with a teach arm.”
Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 15, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
15. A robot programming system comprising:
at a first location comprising a teaching station, a teach
arm and a table having a fixture plate, wherein teach data is
prepared to teach motions to a robot to drive an end effector
through a series of desired path points along a desired path of
motion with respect to an application station, said teach data
comprising at least one of robot position data elements and at
least one of robot motion pattern data elements;
at a second location comprising said application station,
said second location being different from said first location, a
robot and a device having a fixture plate, wherein said teach data
is communicated to said robot and said robot is programmed in
accordance with said teach data to drive said end effector through
said series of desired path points along said desired path of
motion with respect to said application station;
at said teaching station, a programmed robot simulation to
drive an end effector model through a series of model path points
along a model path of motion with respect to said teaching
station, the model path points and model path of motion
corresponding to desired path points and a desired path of
motion; and
at said first location:
an end effector model that moves through a series of
model path points along a model path of motion with respect to
the teaching station, the model path points and model path of
motion corresponding to desired path points and a desired path
of motion;
an encoder for furnishing model path point data
representative of the position and orientation of the end effector
model with respect to the teaching station at each of the model
Appeal 2015-004742
Application 13/080,696

3
path points as the end effector model is moved through the model
path of motion, the encoder defining an encoder kinematics;
an electronic memory for storing data, including:
simulation software memory for storing robot simulation
and motion program generation software for a robot simulation
defining a robot kinematics;
model path point memory for storing the model path point
data; and
motion program memory for storing robot motion-control
program segments; and
a programmable computer coupled to the encoder and to
the electronic memory, including:
a motion program processor for executing the robot
simulation and motion program generation software as a function
of the model path point data to generate robot motion-control
program segments for causing the robot to drive the end effector
through the desired path of motion, and for storing the robot
motion-control program segments in the motion program
memory.

REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1, 15, and 16 are rejected as indefinite under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
2) Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ban (US 2005/0107920 A1, published
May 19, 2005) and Watanabe (US 6,928,337 B2, issued
Aug. 9, 2005).
3) Claims 2, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ban, Watanabe, and Karakama (US
5,600,759, issued Feb. 4, 1997).
Appeal 2015-004742
Application 13/080,696

4
4) Claims 3–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ban, Watanabe, and Eliuk (US 2006/0259195 A1, published
Nov. 16, 2006).
5) Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ban, Watanabe, Eliuk, and Rongo (US 6,292,715 B1, issued Sept.
18, 2001).

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner determines that the limitation “moving an end effector
model through a series of model path points along a model path of motion
with respect to the teaching station” is indefinite because “it is unclear how
an end effector model, interpreted as a simulation, can be moved with
respect to a teaching station, a physical device.” Final Act. 2. Appellant
contends this determination is erroneous. Br. 6–7.
The Specification provides that the teaching station includes “a teach
arm 13 and a table having a fixture plate 12.” Spec. ¶ 19, Fig. 1. Devices
mounted to a robot wrist such as a “grasping mechanism and workpiece . . .
are together known generally as an end effector.” Id. ¶ 4. The Specification
further describes:
The teach arm system can be used by a technician to generate model
path points representative of the position and orientation of the end
effector model with respect to the workstation model or teaching
station. To perform this programming operation, the technician can
grasp the working end, and manipulates the working end to move the
end effector model through a model path of motion with respect to the
workstation model. The model path of motion is a path that
corresponds to or replicates the desired path of motion of robot end
effector with respect to the actual workstation or application station.
Appeal 2015-004742
Application 13/080,696

5
Spec. ¶ 50.
The Specification, thus, describes the end effector model as a physical
device located at the end of the teach arm, and that the working end of the
teach arm is grasped and manipulated by a technician. Therefore, we are not
persuaded that claims 1, 15, and 16 are unclear because the end effector
model is described as a physical device. We, thus, do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejection 2
The Examiner finds that Ban discloses the subject matter of claims 1
and 15 except for simulation software. Final Act. 4–6 (citing Ban ¶¶ 20–22,
42, 43, Fig. 2). In particular, the Examiner finds that Ban discloses the
recited first location and second location. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that
Watanabe discloses a “robot simulation apparatus that discloses simulation
software that teaches moving an end effector model through a series of
model path points along a model path of motion with respect to the teaching
station,” as well as other limitations recited in claims 1 and 15. Id. at 6–7
(citing Watanabe, col. 1, ll. 41–61).
Appellant contends that neither Ban nor Watanabe either “alone or in
combination, disclose or suggest robot programming/controlling methods or
systems that involve off-line robot programming with a teach arm that
minimizes the amount of robot down time and lost productivity.” Br. 9. For
the following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 15.
Ban discloses a “teaching position correcting device which can easily
correct, with high precision, teaching positions after shifting at least one of a
robot and an object worked by the robot.” Ban, Abstract. Ban discloses
robot 1 including robot control device 1a and robot mechanical unit 1b. Id. ¶
Appeal 2015-004742
Application 13/080,696

6
42. Robot 1 “carries out a welding to workpiece 4,” which “is held on the
holder 5.” Id. ¶ 48, Fig. 2. Ban discloses teaching board 18, which is an
electronic device having, inter alia, a system program stored in memory 12
and an interface for an operator to input parameters. See id. ¶ 43. Watanabe
discloses that a “computer receives robot mechanical unit motion position
information supplied from a robot controller and command information to be
outputted to the peripheral device, and displays motions of the robot
mechanical unit and the peripheral device on its display screen in an
animation form.” Watanabe, Abstract.
Although we agree that Ban discloses the second location recited in
claim 15, the Examiner’s finding that Ban’s teaching board 18 constitutes
the recited first location is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
We appreciate the Examiner’s reference to Ban’s teaching board 18,
however, the Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure in Ban or
Watanabe of a first location, different from the recited second location,
“comprising a teaching station, a teach arm and a table having a fixture
plate,” as recited in claim 15. As noted above, Ban’s teaching board 18 is an
electronic device and does not include a physical teach arm and table having
a fixture plate, as called for by claim 15. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
finding that Ban discloses the recited first location in claim 15 is not
supported by Ban. As the rejection is based on an erroneous factual finding,
the conclusion of obviousness cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (holding that “[t]he legal conclusion of
obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is not
supported by facts it cannot stand.”). We, thus, do not sustain the rejection
of claim 15.
Appeal 2015-004742
Application 13/080,696

7
Claim 1 recites “at said first location: moving an end effector model
through a series of model path points along a model path of motion with
respect to the teaching station.” Br. 19 (Claims App.). Ban does not
disclose moving an end effector model at the first location because Ban does
not disclose a physical end effector model at the first location. Therefore,
we likewise do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Rejections 3–5
Independent claim 16 is rejected as unpatentable over Ban, Watanabe,
and Karakama. Final Act. 9–14. Claim 16 contains the same structural
limitations for the first location and the second location stated above for
claim 15. Br. 23 (Claims App.). The Examiner does not rely on Karakama
in any way that would cure the deficiencies in the combination of Ban and
Watanabe stated above for claim 15. Final Act. 14. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 16 for the same reasons stated above for the
rejection of claim 15.
Claims 2–12 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Br. 19–21
(Claims App.). The Examiner rejected these claims as unpatentable based
on various combinations of Ban and Watanabe with Karakama, Eliuk, and
Rongo. Final Act. 7–20. The Examiner does not rely on the additional
teachings of Karakama, Eliuk, or Rongo in any way that would cure the
deficiencies noted above in the combination of Ban and Watanabe. Id.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2–12 for the same
reasons stated above for the rejection of claim 1.

Appeal 2015-004742
Application 13/080,696

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–12, 15, and 16 is
reversed.

REVERSED