Ex Parte Kondo

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 12, 2011

10494598 (B.P.A.I. May. 12, 2011)

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.
10/494,598 05/05/2004 Tetsujiro Kondo 450100-04264 3847
7590 05/13/2011
William S Frommer
Frommer Lawrence & Haug
745 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10151
EXAMINER
HUQ, FARZANA B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TETSUJIRO KONDO
____________

Appeal 2009-012561
Application 10/494,598
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, KARL D. EASTHOM, and GREGORY J.
GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-012561
Application 10/494,598

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-21, 23-44, and 46. (App. Br. 4.) Claims 22 and 45 were cancelled. (Id.)
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Disclosed Invention
The disclosed invention includes a “manipulator system for surgery,
configured of a slave manipulator 61, master manipulators 621 through 62K,
a network 63, and a super doctor database unit 64.” (Spec. 17:7-10; FIG. 3.)
“The slave manipulator 61 acts based upon signals supplied via the network
63, and performs endermic surgery or the like on an animal such as a dog or
the like, for example, which is the subject of surgery.” (Spec. 17:11-14.)
“The master manipulator 62K acts in response to operations of a user UK,
which is a veterinarian for example, and information supplied through the
network 63 from the super doctor database 64.” (Spec. 17:18-21.)
Exemplary claim 1 follows:
1. An information processing system comprising:
a plurality of actuators configured to act corresponding to operations
by a plurality of users;
a plurality of detectors configured to detect the real world where said
plurality of actuators act;
a communication unit configured to exchange information between
said plurality of actuators and said plurality of detectors;
a storage unit configured to store results from acting by said plurality
of actuators or results from detecting by said plurality of detectors;
Appeal 2009-012561
Application 10/494,598

3
a comparator configured to compare a present result from acting by
one or more of said plurality of actuators or a present result from detecting
by one or more of said plurality of detectors with past results from acting by
one or more of said plurality of actuators and stored in said storage unit or
past results from detecting by one or more of said plurality of detectors and
stored in said storage unit; and
an integrating unit configured to integrate the present result from
acting by one or more of said plurality of actuators or the present result from
detecting by one or more of said plurality of detectors and the past results
from acting by one or more of said plurality of actuators or the past results
from detecting by one or more of said plurality of detectors according to a
result of said comparing, and outputting as an integrated result from acting
or an integrated result from detecting,
wherein said plurality of actuators and said plurality of detectors share
processing through collaboration, whereby said plurality of actuators or said
plurality of detectors are more highly functional as compared to operating
individually.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-21, 23-44, and 46 as obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on U.S. Patent 6,659,939 (Moll) and U.S. Patent
6,594,552 (Nowlin).
1

ISSUES
Appellant‟s responses to the Examiner‟s positions present the
following issues:

1
The Examiner also initially issued additional rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§
101 and 112, first and second paragraphs, but later withdrew those
rejections. (Ans. 20.)
Appeal 2009-012561
Application 10/494,598

4
1. Did the Examiner establish that the combination of Moll and Nowlin
renders obvious a comparator that compares a present result from one or
more actuators or detectors with past results from one or more actuators or
detectors and an integrating unit that integrates the present result from the
actuators or detectors and the past results of the actuators or detectors
according to a result of the comparison, as required by independent claims 1,
21, 23, 24, 44 and 46?
2. Did the Examiner establish that the combination of Moll and Nowlin
renders obvious the limitation that “said plurality of actuators and said
plurality of detectors share processing through collaboration,” as recited in
independent claim 1, and as similar recited in independent claims 21, 23, 24,
44, and 46?
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Moll
1. Moll discloses a robotic surgical system including a master control
station, a slave cart, and surgical instruments. (Col. 10, l. 65 – col. 11, l. 5.)
An operator “views a display provided by the workstation and manipulates
left and right input devices.” (Col. 11, ll. 6-7.) “The telesurgical system
moves surgical instruments mounted on robotic arms of slave cart 300 in
response to movement of the input devices.” (Col. 11, ll. 7-10.)
2. The slave incrementally tracks new positions of the master:
Since the master has moved to a new position, a comparison of
its corresponding position xm in Cartesian space with the
Cartesian space position of the slave corresponding to its initial
position, yields a positional deviation. From this positional
deviation in Cartesian space, a force fs in Cartesian space is
computed at 410 which is necessary to move the slave position
in Cartesian space to a new position corresponding to the new
Appeal 2009-012561
Application 10/494,598

5
position of the master xm in Cartesian space. This computation
is typically performed using a proportional integral derivative
(P.I.D.) controller. This force fs is then input to a slave
kinematics converter 412 as indicated by arrow AB5.
(Col. 22, ll. 3-14; FIG. 11.) “It will be appreciated that although reference is
made to an initial position and new position of the master, these positions
are typically incremental stages of a master control movement. Thus, the
slave is continually tracking incremental new positions of the master.”
(Col. 22, ll. 27-32.)
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears an initial burden of factually supporting an
articulated rejection. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Under
§ 103, “„there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.‟” KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citation omitted).
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that independent claims 1, 21, 23, 24, 44, and 46 are
not obvious because Moll discloses comparing a new position with a
reference position, which “is different from Appellant‟s claimed comparison
between a present results and a past result of a same operation.” (App.
Br. 16-17 (emphasis omitted).) Appellant similarly argues that “Moll
integrates two results of a present operation in direct contrast with
Appellant‟s claimed integrating a present result and a past result.” (Id.
at 17.)
But Moll discloses the comparison of a new position and an initial
position of a master control to yield a positional deviation. (FF 2; see
Ans. 21.) Moll further discloses that a force necessary to move the slave
Appeal 2009-012561
Application 10/494,598

6
from a position corresponding to the master‟s initial position to the master‟s
new position is computed using a proportional integral derivative controller.
(FF 2; see Ans. 21-22.) Because the master is in its initial position before it
is in its new position, the master‟s initial position and new position in Moll
correspond to the “past results” and “present result” respectively, as recited
in independent claims. (See FF 2.) Accordingly, Appellant has not shown
that Moll fails to teach or render obvious the claimed comparison and
integration of a present result and past results.
Appellant also argues that the combination of Moll and Nowlin does
not render obvious a plurality of actuators and detectors that “share
processing through collaboration.” (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 18.) Contrary
to Appellant‟s argument, however, Moll discloses actuators such as input
devices at a master control station and robotic arms on a slave cart and
sensors that detect the positions of the master and slave. (FF 1, 2; see
Ans. 22.) Moreover, the devices at the master control station and the slave
cart share processing through collaboration by operating so that the slave
continually tracks the position of the master. (FF 2; see Ans. 22.)
Therefore, Appellant has not shown that Moll fails to teach or render
obvious the claimed actuators and detectors that share processing through
collaboration.
Accordingly, we will sustain Examiner‟s rejection of independent
claims 1, 21, 23, 24, 44, and 46 as well as claims 2-20, and 25-43, dependent
therefrom, because Appellant does not present separate arguments for the
dependent claims.
Appeal 2009-012561
Application 10/494,598

7
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner‟s decision rejecting claims 1-21, 23-44, and
46.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ak