Ex Parte Nihei et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2016

11447034 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111447,034 0610612006
55694 7590 09/27/2016
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC)
1500 K STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-1209
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
RyoNihei
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.
47260-5045-00 (227549) 3372
EXAMINER
KIM,KYUNGJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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):
DBRIPDocket@dbr.com
penelope.mongelluzzo@dbr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RYO NIHEI, TETSUAKI KATO, and HIROJI NISHI
Appeal2015-000248
Application 11/447,0341
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-5, 11-15, and 18. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest for this appeal is
Fanuc Ltd." Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2015-000248
Application 11/447,034
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 15,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
15. A method for controlling a robot;
the method making the robot execute tasks including a
plurality of work units in a parallel manner for several
workpieces, in accordance with a plurality of operation programs
for individually commanding the plurality of work units;
each of the plurality of operation programs including a
description of a task starting condition as a precondition for
starting a corresponding work unit by the robot;
the method comprising:
collecting state information showing, in real time, an
operating state of an environment allowing the robot to execute
said tasks;
selecting a first executable program satisfying said task
starting condition described in said first executable program,
from operation programs ready to be executed for workpieces
among said plurality of operation programs; by judging whether
said operating state satisfies said task starting condition based on
said state information as collected;
processing, for execution, said first executable program as
selected;
selecting a second executable program satisfying said task
starting condition described in said second executable program,
from said operation programs ready to be executed, by judging
whether said operating state satisfies said task starting condition
based on said state information as collected, depending on a state
of processing of said first executable program; and
processing, for execution, said second executable program
as selected;
wherein the method further comprises, before selecting
said second executable program, judging whether internal
information showing a state of an internal model, provided by
2
Appeal2015-000248
Application 11/447,034
modeling said environment allowing the robot to execute said
tasks, coincides with said state information as collected, said
internal information adapted to show an operating state of said
environment based on whether or not a command in an operation
program is output, thereby judging whether said processing of
said first executable program has been completed, and judging
whether a predetermined time has elapsed during judging
whether said processing of said first executable program has
been completed or not, said predetermined time being defined
from an instant when said command in said operation program is
output to an instant when said operating state of said environment
is actually changed;
wherein said plurality of operation programs include an
exception operation program for
commanding an exception-processing work unit provided
for an escape motion, said exception operation program being
different from said operation programs ready to be executed,
wherein a certain operation program in said plurality of operation
programs is provided with a branch command for branching to
said exception operation program when an abnormality occurs in
a work unit commanded by said certain operation program;
wherein, when judging that said internal information
coincides with said state information and said processing of said
first executable program has been completed, and when judging
that said time has not elapsed during judging whether said
processing of said first executable program has been completed
or not, said second executable program is processed; and
wherein, when judging that said internal information does
not coincide with said state information and said processing of
said first executable program has not been completed, or
alternatively, when judging that said time has elapsed during
judging whether said processing of said first executable program
has been completed or not, and if said branch command is
described in said first executable program, said exception
operation program is processed in place of said second
executable program in accordance with said branch command.
3
Appeal2015-000248
Application 11/447,034
Rejections
I. Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35
U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement.
II. Claims 1-5 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Soetens et al. ("Realtime Hybrid Task-Based
Control for Robots Machine Tools" Robotics and Automation, Proceedings
of the 2005 IEEE, 259---64 (April 2005) (hereinafter "Soetens")).
III. Claims 11, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Soetens and Shimogama et al. (US 5,834,916, iss. Nov.
10, 1998 (hereinafter "Shimogama")).
IV. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Soetens, Shimogama, and Watanabe et al. (US
2004/0133312 Al, pub. July 8, 2004 (hereinafter "Watanabe")).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that "wherein said program-completing judging
section judges whether a predetermined time has elapsed during judging," as
recited in claim 1, fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Final Act. 3. We also understand the Examiner to reject independent claim
15, which includes a similar limitation, for the same reasons. See id. The
Examiner supports this finding by explaining that "[ n ]owhere in the
Specification does the judging section judge[] during the processing section,
only before." Id. (citing Spec. para. 20). Additionally, the Examiner finds
that the phrase "branch command," as recited in claims 1 and 15, fails to
4
Appeal2015-000248
Application 11/447,034
comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner supports this finding by explaining that although the Specification
uses the word "branch," it does not use the term "branch command,"
particularly "in context of being within a program." Id.; see Spec. 31, 1. 3 5.
The Appellants contend that there is adequate disclosure in the
Specification to support the claimed subject matter. See Appeal. Br. 8-10
(citing Spec. 30, 11. 9-22, 31, 1. 28 - 32, 1. 35, 51, 11. 20-32, 60, 11. 1-9;
Figs. 20A, 20B). The Appellants' contention is persuasive. Notably, the
claimed invention need not be recited in the exact language in the original
Specification to satisfy the written description requirement. See Ariad
Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en
bane). The fundamental factual inquiry is whether the Specification conveys
with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date
sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. We
agree with the Appellants that the cited passages in conjunction with the
method steps shown in Figures 20A and 20B convey with reasonable clarity
to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in
possession of the claimed subject matter in dispute. See also Vas Cath Inc.
v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1561---64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Additionally, we
agree with the Appellants that "the exception process at
page 60, lines 6-9" is an example of a branch command. Appeal Br. 10.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 15 as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
5
Appeal2015-000248
Application 11/447,034
Rejections II-IV
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 and 11-14
Independent claim 1 is directed to "[a] device for controlling a robot"
and includes, among other things, a program-completion judging section and
a processing section. Appeal Br., Claims App. Also, we note that the last
two limitations of claim 1 are "wherein" clauses, which state:
wherein, when said program-completion judging section
judges that said internal information coincides with said state
information and said processing section has completed said
processing, and when said program-completion judging section
judges that said time has not elapsed during judging whether said
processing section has completed or not said processing, said
processing section processes said second executable program
selected by said program selecting section; and
wherein, when said program-completion judging section
judges that said internal information does not coincide with said
state information and said processing section has not completed
said processing, or alternatively, when said program-completion
judging section judges that said time has elapsed during judging
whether said processing section has completed or not said
processing, and if said branch command is described in said first
executable program, said processing section processes said
exception operation program in place of said second executable
program in accordance with said branch command.
Id. (emphasis added).
The Appellants construe the last "wherein" clause to require five
features, as follows:
either that (i) an internal information does not coincide with a
state information, (ii) the processing section has not yet
completed a processing, or (iii) the program-completion judging
section judges that the time has elapsed during judging whether
said processing section has completed or not the processing, and
(iv) if said branch command is described in the first executable
6
Appeal2015-000248
Application 11/447,034
program, then (v) the processing section processes the exception
operation program in place of the second executable program in
accordance with the branch command.
Appeal Br. 14; see Reply Br. 2-7. The Examiner construes claim 1 to
require some, but not necessarily all, of the five features due to the phrase
"or alternatively." Ans. 3--4. More particularly, the Examiner construes
claim 1 to require either features (i), (ii), and (v) or (iii), (iv), and (v). See
id. We agree with the Appellants' construction for claim 1. Independent
claim 1 is a device claim and the phrase "or alternatively" is required by
claim 1 "to be construed as a technical programming operator or logic
operator for control operations performed on the claimed program-
completionjudging section for a device that controls a robot." Reply Br. 3.
Further, we note that the last two limitations of claim 1 represent the
entire universe of potential outcomes for judgements provided by the
program-completion judging section. More particularly, the program-
completion judging section requires a judgement concerning "whether said
internal information coincides with said state information collected by said
information collecting section." Appeal Br., Claims App. This.first
judgement has two possibilities: the internal information coincides or the
internal information does not coincide. The program-completion judging
section also requires a judgement concerning "whether a predetermined time
has elapsed during judging whether said processing section has completed or
not said processing." See id. This second judgement has two possibilities:
the predetermined time has not elapsed or the predetermined time has
elapsed. Based on the foregoing, the outcomes of the first and second
judgement can only result in four outcomes. A first outcome is provided by
the penultimate limitation of claim 1, i.e., the internal information coincides
7
Appeal2015-000248
Application 11/447,034
and the predetermined time has not elapsed. See id. The remainder of
outcomes is provided by the last limitation of claim 1. See id. Accordingly,
we determine that claim 1 requires a device for carrying out the result of
each outcome.
Turning to the application of Soetens, the Examiner does not appear to
find that Soetens discloses all of features (i}-(v), particularly features (i) and
(ii). See Ans. 3---6; see also Reply Br. 7. As such, the Examiner's rejection
falls short of explaining how all of the subject matter of claim 1 is met by
Soetens's disclosure. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 as anticipated by Soetens.
Additionally, independent claim 15 is a method claim that includes similar
requirements as those discussed above with regard to claim 1. For the
rejection of claim 15, the Examiner uses the same findings as provided for
claim 1. See Final Act. 9. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 15 as anticipated by Soetens. The remaining
rejections based on Soetens in combination with Shimogama, and
Shimogama and Watanabe appear to rely on the same insufficient findings
as discussed above. As such, we do not sustain the rejections of: claims 11,
12, and 18 as unpatentable over Soetens and Shimogama; and claims 13 and
14 as unpatentable over Soetens, Shimogama, and Watanabe.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 11-15,
and 18.
REVERSED
8