Ex Parte Murakami

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 29, 2003

08924856 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 29, 2003)

1 Application for patent filed September 5, 1997, which claims the
foreign filing priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of Japanese Application
No. 8-238937, filed September 10, 1996.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte NAOYUKI MURAKAMI
____________
Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,8561
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT and SAADAT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-9, which are all of the claims pending in
this application.
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to a visually controlled robot
system that uses image recognition devices. The system includes
a robot that moves three-dimensionally, video cameras for taking
images of the moving area of the robot and a target within the
moving area (specification, page 2). After a moving area of the
robot is recognized, a controller receives signals to displace
the robot to the target position (id.).
Representative independent claim 1 and dependent claim 7 are
reproduced below:
1. A visually controlled robot system comprising:
a robot means for moving three-dimensionally,
means for taking images of the entire moving area of
the robot, the means for taking images comprising at least
two video cameras placed to provide images of the entire
moving area of the robot from at least two directions,
a visible target existing within the moving area of the
robot,
a control circuit having a function to recognize
beforehand the moving area of the robot and another function
to store in a memory the position of the visible target
taken by said means for taking images as well as an ordering
signal to move the robot to said position, and

a drive control means for driving the robot by said
ordering signal from the memory of the control circuit.
Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
3
7. The visually controlled robot system of claim
6, wherein the three video cameras are mounted on three
mutually perpendicular axises.
The references relied on by the Examiner are:
Beamish et al. (Beamish) 4,825,394 Apr. 25, 1989
Christian 4,887,223 Dec. 12, 1989
Claims 1-6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Christian.
Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Christian and Beamish.
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellant, we refer to the answer (Paper No. 12, mailed November
4, 1999) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, to the brief (Paper No. 11, filed August 20, 1999)
and the reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed January 13, 2000) for
Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellant indicates that claims
1-6 and 8 constitute one group while claims 7 and 9 stand or fall
together (brief, page 4). Thus, we will consider Appellant’s
claims 1-9 as these two identified groups and we will treat
claims 1 and 7 as the representative claims of their
corresponding groups.
Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
4
With regard to the rejection of claims 1-6 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 102, Appellant argues that Christian discloses
multiple overhead cameras but fails to teach imaging of the
entire moving area by at least two cameras from two different
directions (brief, page 4 and reply brief, page 3). Appellant
further asserts that each of Christian’s multiple cameras covers
only a distinct portion of the moving area of the robot (brief,
pages 6 & 7 and reply brief, page 3). Appellant also asserts
that Christian’s “goal” position is merely a position stored in
the memory of the navigation system and differs from the claimed
limitation of a “visible target” (brief, page 6). Furthermore,
Appellant points out that if the “visible target” is the same as
the robot itself, the “ordering signal” cannot move the robot to
the position of the visible target when the robot is always
located at the position of the visible target (id.).
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments by stating
that claim 1 merely requires that if the images cover the entire
moving are, such coverage be provided by at least two cameras
from different directions (answer, page 3). Relying on the
breadth of claim 1, the Examiner asserts that Christian does
teach a plurality of cameras that take images of the entire
moving area of the robot (id.). The Examiner further argues that
Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
5
Christian inherently includes a visible target by disclosing the
presence of the robot on a factory floor and a position on the
floor to which the robot is directed (answer, pages 3 & 4).
Before addressing the Examiner’s rejection, it is essential
that we understand the claimed subject matter and determine its
scope. Claim interpretation must begin with the language of the
claim itself. See Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena
Laboratories Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1472 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). Accordingly, as required by our reviewing court, we
will initially direct our attention to Appellant’s claim 1 in
order to determine its scope. “[T]he name of the game is the
claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1985).
Appellant’s claim 1 requires that the means for taking
images comprise “at least two video cameras placed to provide
images of the entire moving area ... from at least two
directions.” Appellant would have us read “at least two video
cameras placed to provide images of the entire moving area” as
Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
6
limited to “two cameras each placed to provide an image of the
entire area.” We decline to attribute such limited meaning to
claim 1 since, as pointed out by the Examiner, the claim does not
preclude at least two cameras which are placed to provide images
that together cover the entire moving area.
As a general principle, a rejection for anticipation under
section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the
claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference.
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994), citing In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d
1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The inquiry as to whether a
reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter
is encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described
by the reference. As set forth by the court in Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), it is only necessary for the claims to “‘read on’
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of
the claim are found in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by it.”
Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
7
After reviewing Christian, we find that the Examiner
presents sufficient evidentiary support to establish a prima
facie case of anticipation. In Figure 9, Christian shows a
plurality of cameras, each having a field of view corresponding
to a portion of the moving area of the robot. In particular,
Christian shows cameras 1 and 2 providing images of two fields of
view that together cover the entire moving area of the robot from
two parallel but different directions extending perpendicularly
downward from the location of each camera (col. 12, lines 35-47).
Therefore, we do not agree with Appellant that Christian’s
multiple overhead cameras do not provide images of the entire
moving area as the claim does not require that each single image
cover the entire moving area.
Christian also discloses a method for navigating multiple
robots using both a stored position and an identified location of
a robot to which another robot is ordered to move (col. 32, line
52 through col. 33, line 24). Thus, the Examiner has properly
corresponded the identified location of the first robot as the
position of a visible target within the moving area to which
another robot is navigated after the first robot moves away from
its particular identified location. We remain unpersuaded by
Appellant’s argument that the claimed “visible target” differs
Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
8
from the position of a first robot to which Christian navigates
another robot. In fact, in navigating multiple robots, Christian
determines the position of a visible target by identifying the
present or absence of a robot in that position using means for
taking images and providing the identified position as the
destination for another robot.
In view of the analysis above, we find that the examiner has
met the burden of providing a prima facie case of anticipation as
Christian teaches a plurality of cameras that provide images of
the entire moving area of the robot from two directions as well
as the visible target in the moving area, as recited in
Appellant’s independent claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection of claims 1-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over
Christian.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 7 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Christian and Beamish, Appellant asserts
that Christian’s use of one overhead camera for each section
provides no incentive for using the multiple camera views of
Beamish (brief, page 7). Although Appellant recognizes the
Examiner’s evaluation of Beamish related to increasing “accuracy
and efficiency in image processing and analysis” (answer, page
4), Appellant argues that no reason exists to expect any
Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
9
improvement to Christian’s system by adding more cameras (brief,
pages 7 & 8).
After reviewing the disclosure of Beamish, we find that the
Examiner has incorrectly corresponded the claimed limitation of
“the three video cameras are mounted on three mutually
perpendicular axises” to the movement of each camera about two
perpendicular axes in Beamish. Although the reference is
directed to a three-dimensional measurement and control system
using multiple cameras, the only disclosure of two perpendicular
axes relates to the axes about which each camera is capable of
moving (col. 2, lines 28-34). There is, in fact, nothing in
Beamish that directs us to the relative position of the cameras
and their mountings on three mutually perpendicular axises. In
our view, the Examiner’s conclusion that the multiple cameras of
Beamish which move about two perpendicular axes correspond to the
claimed cameras “mounted on three mutually perpendicular axises”
is not supported by the prior art disclosure. In order for us to
agree with the Examiner’s position, we would need to improperly
resort to speculation or unfounded assumptions to supply
deficiencies in the factual basis of the rejection. In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert.
denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), reh’g denied, 390 U.S. 1000 (1968).
Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
10
Assuming, arguendo, that it would have been obvious to
utilize the multiple camera view of Beamish in Christian’s system
for navigating a robot, as held by the Examiner, the combination
of references would still not disclose the mounting of three
video cameras on three mutually perpendicular axises. In that
regard, Beamish only supplies what appears to be multiple views
by multiple cameras which are capable of movement about two
perpendicular axis. Accordingly, as the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 7 and 9 cannot be sustained.
Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
11
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 7 and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MDS/vsh
Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
12
REED SMITH, LLP
ATTN: PATENT RECORDS DEPARTMENT
599 LEXINGTON AVENUE, 29TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10022-7650