12300594 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016)

Ex Parte L¿nnemark et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 25, 2016

12300594 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 12/300,594 95002 7590 Seppo Laine Oy ltamerenkatu 3 A Helsinki, FI00180 FINLAND FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 11112/2008 Gunilla Llnnemark 08/25/2016 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. ABB 76US 1578 EXAMINER BOURZIK, BRAHIM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2191 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 08/25/2016 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 GUNILLA LONNEMARK, STEVE MURPHY, RAGNAR NOHRE, NIKLAS SKOGLUND, and DANIEL WADENHOF Appeal2015-000399 Application 12/300,594 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of Claims 1-5 and 7-10. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies ABB AB, as the real party in interest. Br. 2. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 18, 2014, "Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed July 29, 2014, "Ans."), the Non-Final Office Action (mailed July 16, 2013, "Non-Final Act."), and the Specification (filed November 12, 2008, "Spec.") for their respective details. Appeal2015-000399 Application 12/300,594 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a device and method for synchronizing a robot program and a graphical program. See Abstract. Claims 1, 5, and 7 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A method for synchronizing a graphical program generated in an off-line simulation environment defining a movement path for a robot comprising a path of target points and actions given in a sequence, and a robot program including program code for a robot controller written in a robot programming language, the method comprising: receiving information on which of the programs is a leader program during synchronization and which of the programs is a follower program during synchronization, wherein the leader program is to remain unchanged during the synchronization, the follower program is to be modified according to the leader program, and wherein both the graphical program and robot program are capable of being selected as the leader program, converting the sequence of target points and actions of the graphical program into a first sequence of tokens representing data for motions and actions contained in the graphical program, converting the robot program into a second sequence of tokens representing data for motions and actions contained in the robot program, comparing the first and second sequences of tokens and based thereon generating modification commands in dependence on which program is the leader and which is the follower, and editing the follower program based on the generated modification commands so that the token sequence of the follower matches the sequence of the leader. 2 Appeal2015-000399 Application 12/300,594 References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Graf Balcha, et al. Schweitz, et al. Agarwal, et al. Kim us 5,495,410 US 6,233,589 Bl US 6,594,822 B 1 US 2004/0225963 Al WO 03/012636 Al Feb.27, 1996 May 15, 2001 July 15, 2003 Nov. 11, 2004 Feb. 13,2003 1. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being "anticipated" by Schweitz, Graf, and Kim. 3 Non-Final Act. 10- 20. 2. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being "anticipated" by Schweitz, Graf, Kim, and Agarwal. 4 Non-Final Act. 20-21. 3. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being "anticipated" by Schweitz, Graf, Kim, and Balcha. 5 Non-Final Act. 21-22. 3 Appellants' traversal correctly assumes the present rejection, under Â§ 103(a), to sound in obviousness. See Br. 11. We, therefore, hold the Examiner's use of the term "anticipated" to be harmless error. 4 Appellants' traversal correctly assumes the present rejection, under Â§ 103(a), to sound in obviousness. See Br. 17. We, therefore, hold the Examiner's use of the term "anticipated" to be harmless error. 5 Appellants' traversal correctly assumes the present rejection, under Â§ 103(a), to sound in obviousness. See Br. 17. We, therefore, hold the Examiner's use of the term "anticipated" to be harmless error. 3 Appeal2015-000399 Application 12/300,594 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-5 and 7-10 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. We provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 11-18. CLAIMS 1, 2, 5, AND 7-10: OBVIOUSNESS OVER SCHWEITZ, GRAF, AND KIM Two different program languages Appellants contend their claims relate to a method for synchronizing a graphical program generated in an off-line simulation environment with a robot program written in a robot programming language. Br. 12. Appellants argue Schweitz that teaches a method to patch programs written in a high- level language, but, in contrast to the claims, the old and new programs must be written in the same language. Id. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the two programs of Schweitz do not need to be programmed in the same language. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Schweitz teaches that to patch a program written in an old language (e.g., Smalltalk) with a patch written in a new language (e.g., CIC++), both programs are first compiled into source-code independent 4 Appeal2015-000399 Application 12/300,594 object files. Ans. 15-16. Subsequently, a patch is generated by comparison of the two object files. Ans. 16-17. Appellants do not reply, and are not persuasive that the Examiner errs. Leader and follower programs Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "wherein both the graphical program and robot program are capable of being selected as the leader program." Appellants contend Schweitz does not teach that each program is capable of being the unmodified leader program or of being the modified follower program. Br. 13. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Kim is directed to updating a robot program using a graphical or text editor. Ans. 18. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Kim teaches that either program may be the leader or follower. Id. Appellants do not reply, and are not persuasive that the Examiner errs. Tokens representing data Appellants contend that Schweitz converts source code to object code, which is then decomposed to cantles. Br. 13. Appellants argue that cantles are sub-parts of an object program, but are not equatable to the claimed tokens representing data for motions and actions contained in the program. Id. The Examiner cites Kim and Graf, not Schweitz, as teaching representations of data for motions and actions. Ans. 24. Appellants do not reply, and are not persuasive that the Examiner errs. Claims 2, 5, and 7-10 stand or fall with Claim 1. See Br. 15-17. 5 Appeal2015-000399 Application 12/300,594 CLAIM 3: OBVIOUSNESS OVER SCHWEITZ, GRAF, KIM, AND AGARWAL Appellants contend that Agarwal fails to cure the deficiencies alleged for the Schweitz-Kim-Graf combination. Br. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs. CLAIM 4: OBVIOUSNESS OVER SCHWEITZ, GRAF, KIM, AND BALCHA Appellants contend that Balcha fails to cure the deficiencies alleged for the Schweitz-Kim-Graf combination. Br. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs. DECISION The rejections of Claims 1-5 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) are AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6