Ex Parte MASUYA

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2019

14796651 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/796,651 07/10/2015 Michi MASUY A
22429 7590 05/22/2019
HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP
2318 Mill Road
Suite 1400
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
4952-305 9240
EXAMINER
MONTY, MARZIA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2118
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2019 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):
docketing@ipfirm.com
pair_lhhb@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MI CHI MASUY A 1
Appeal2018-006404
Application 14/796, 651
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Summary of disclosure
The Specification discloses use of "an accumulation unit configured
to, when ... disturbance torque is imposed on [a] brake, find a first
1 Appellant is FANUC Corporation, the applicant and real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-006404
Application 14/796, 651
coefficient corresponding to the disturbance torque and accumulate a value
of the first coefficient." Abstract.
Illustrative claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A machine tool, comprising:
a rotary table configured to mount a workpiece thereupon;
a brake configured to retain the rotary table at an indexed position;
a display;
a controller configured to calculate a disturbance torque imposed on
the brake while the rotary table is retained by the brake; and
a memory configured to store a table in which a plurality of values of
a first coefficient corresponds to a plurality of different sizes of the
disturbance torque;
wherein
the controller is configured to, each time the disturbance torque is
imposed on the brake,
calculate a size of the disturbance torque,
find a value of the first coefficient corresponding to the
calculated size of the disturbance torque based on (i) the
calculated size of the disturbance torque, and (ii) the table
stored in the memory,
accumulate the found value of the first coefficient, and
cause the display to generate an indicator of necessity of a
replacement of the brake in response to a determination that the
value of the first coefficient accumulated over multiple times
when the disturbance torque is imposed on the brake reaches a
predetermined value.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Reinecke (US 4,790,606; Dec. 13, 1988), Guilford (US
2
Appeal2018-006404
Application 14/796, 651
2007/0168085 Al; July 19, 2007), and Zheng (US 2014/0035213 Al; Feb.
6, 2014). Final Act. 3-21.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 requires accumulating a found value of a first coefficient each
time a disturbance torque is imposed on the brake. The Specification
illustrates this accumulation as adding coefficient Kl to accumulation
coefficient N such that N=N+Kl. See Spec. Fig. 2. The Examiner finds that
Guilford discloses coefficient values (Final Act. 6-7 (citing Guilford ,r 24));
however, the Examiner relies on Reinecke to teach or suggest accumulation
of such values each time a disturbance torque is imposed on a brake (Final
Act. 4--5 (citing Reinecke cols. 2, 6, col. 9, 11. 48-52, col. 10, 11. 39--46)).
Reinecke discloses constant monitoring characteristics of a brake unit
such as temperature and responding ( e.g., through a warning or braking
torque regulation) if the characteristics, given a current braking torque,
deviate from those stored in a family of characteristic curves. See Reinecke
col. 6, 11. 28--45; see also id. at col. 9, 11. 48-52. Reinecke further discloses
monitoring a group of brake units, rather than individual brake units, by
averaging output signals of brake units in the group. See id. at col. 6, 11. 9-
27. For example, Reinecke discloses an embodiment where "evaluation
devices corresponding to the temperature sensors 15a and 16a on the one
hand, and 15b and 16b on the other hand, are designed so that they form an
average value from the output signals of the corresponding temperature
sensors." Id. at col. 10, 11. 39--44; see also id. Fig. 1. Reinecke also
discloses obtaining medium deceleration and braking force values during a
time interval. See id. at col. 2, 11. 23-32.
3
Appeal2018-006404
Application 14/796, 651
The Examiner finds that "Reinecke's control system has constant
monitoring ... and it can accumulate running measurement values over time
in its memory." Final Act. 5 ( citing Reinecke col. 10, 11. 39--46) ( emphasis
omitted). Thus, the Examiner finds Reinecke "teaches forming an average
value from the corresponding measurement values" and "incorporating new
values over existing values over time." Final Act. 5 ( emphasis omitted).
The Examiner emphasizes that Reinecke "teaches forming an average value
from corresponding measurement values" and that an average is determined
by "adding up a set of numbers, and then divid[ing] by how many numbers
there are." Ans. 4.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because accumulating, as
claimed, is not "'incorporating a new value to an already existing value'
.... Rather, it is calculating a sum of values of the first coefficient found at
multiple times the disturbance torque is imposed on the brake." Appeal Br.
11. Appellant correctly notes that this interpretation of the accumulate
recitation is consistent with the Specification's step SA4 addition of value
Kl to accumulation coefficient N. Id. (citing Spec. 11, 1. 18, Fig. 2); see
also Reply Br. 5. The Specification further states that, in addition to having
a value "accumulated" in this manner, "other calculation method[ s ]" may be
used. Spec. 14, 1. 12-14. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the claimed
accumulation requires adding or incorporating a value, each time a
disturbance torque is imposed on a brake, into a running calculation ( e.g.,
into a sum that includes values from previous times the disturbance torque
was imposed on the brake) rather than merely incorporating a new value
over an existing value as the Examiner posits. See Final Act. 5.
4
Appeal2018-006404
Application 14/796, 651
Appellant further contends the cited portions of Reinecke fail to
"disclose or suggest that the average value is formed from measurement
values which are taken over time as asserted by the Examiner." Reply Br.
10. Specifically, Appellant notes Reinecke's "evaluation devices
corresponding to the temperature sensors 15a or 16a on the one hand, and
15b and 16b on the other hand, form an average value." Id. Thus,
Appellant argues that rather than taking measurements over time to form an
average value, Reinecke forms an average value from output signals from
within a group of temperature sensors. See id. at 10-11.
We also agree with Appellant that the average value formed in the
cited portions of Reinecke relate to averaging output signals from
temperature sensors within a group of sensors rather than to averaging
output signals obtained each time a disturbance torque is imposed on the
brake. The Examiner finds that Reinecke teaches "taking measurements ...
continuously ... over time" and "forming an average value from the ...
measurements." Ans. 4 (citing Reinecke col. 5, 11. 9-11, col. 6, 11. 29-38,
col. 10, 11. 39--46). The cited averaging in Reinecke, however, relates to
forming groups of brakes "whereby the output signals of the temperature-
dependent measurement elements or of the evaluation devices of each brake
unit of the group are averaged in the evaluation devices or in the comparison
apparatus." Reinecke col. 6, 11. 12-15. This allows, for example, regulation
of wheel brakes on both sides of a vehicle that have been combined into
groups, thus providing "the advantage that the numbers of the control
channels or control circuits of the comparison apparatus and of the braking
torque control devices are limited." Id. at col. 6, 11. 21-27. Thus,
Reinecke' s average value represents combining multiple output values into a
5
Appeal2018-006404
Application 14/796, 651
single value in a manner that fails to include values from previous times a
disturbance force was imposed on a brake. This averaging fails to teach or
suggest an accumulation of a value each time a disturbance force is imposed
on the same brake ( e.g., adding the value to a running sum that includes
values from previous times a disturbance force was imposed on the brake).
For these reasons the Examiner's findings do not show that Reinecke
teaches or suggests the claimed accumulate recitation of claim 1. The
Examiner also does not show that Guilford or Zheng cure the noted
deficiency of Reinecke.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 1, or claims 2 and 3, which have similar recitations and
are similarly rejected.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3.
REVERSED
6