Ex Parte Piccioni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 1, 2017

11943570 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2017)

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.
11/943,570 11/20/2007 Robert L. Piccioni PICI2007001US1 3725
33437 7590 06/02/2017
GREG GOSHORN, P.C.
9600 ESCARPMENT
SUITE 745-9
AUSTIN, TX 78749
EXAMINER
MYERS, GLENN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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 ROBERT L. PICCIONI and MATTHEW B. TALPIS
____________

Appeal 2015-007220
Application 11/943,570
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

The Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claim 22, the only claim pending.3 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Jan. 8, 2015), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 29,
2015), and Specification (“Spec.,” filed Nov. 20, 2007), and to the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 29, 2015) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Apr. 8, 2014).
2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Safe-T-Arm, LLC.
Appeal Br. 3.
3 With the Appeal Brief, the Appellants cancelled claims 1–21. Appeal
Br. 1. Thus, only claim 22 and the rejection thereto is before us in this
appeal.
Appeal 2015-007720
Application 11/943,570

2
THE REJECTION
Claim 22 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mein (US 2005/0017491 A1, pub. Jan. 27, 2005), and
Ramirez (US 7,896,113 B1, iss. Mar. 1, 2011). Ans. 2.4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ “invention relates generally to mechanical systems
and, more particularly, the invention relates to remote controlled mechanical
manipulators.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 22 is the only claim on appeal and is reproduced below
(bracketing added for reference):
22. A system for remote object handling comprising:
[(a)] a public safety vehicle having a front portion;
[(b)] an articulated arm having a first end and a second end
distinct from the first end, the arm being coupled to the front
portion at the first end, and having at least one pivot disposed
between the first end and the second end;
[(c)] a gripping element removably coupled to the second
end, wherein the gripping element is one of a pincer device, a
hand device having at least three fingers or a shovel;
[(d)] a video camera coupled to the second end;
[(e)] an arm control disposed within the vehicle and
operable to control the operation of the arm, the gripping element
and the video camera; and
[(f)] a video interface coupled to the video camera and
operable to display output from the video camera.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.).

4 The rejection of claim 22 as unpatentable over Ramirez and Mein as
presented in the Final Action has been withdrawn. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2015-007720
Application 11/943,570

3
ANALYSIS
Claim 22 requires, in relevant part, that a gripping element is
removably coupled to the second end of an articulated arm, as recited in
limitation (c). We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner does not
adequately show that Ramirez, on which the Examiner relies (see Ans. 2;
Final Act. 6), teaches this limitation. See Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds that Ramirez discloses the gripping element as
claimed in Figure 6, items 74 and 76. Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 6.
However, the Examiner does not adequately show, and we do not see from
the face of the reference, where Ramirez discloses a gripping arm device that
is removably coupled to the second end of the arm. Ramirez discloses “an
identification holder 74 mounted on an extension arm 76 that positions the
identification holder 74 within the viewing scope of the camera 56.”
Ramirez, col. 7, ll. 43–46. Ramirez does not explicitly or implicitly disclose
that the holder 74 is removably mounted to the arm, that it is a pincer device,
has three fingers, or is a shovel. Figure 6, the relevant portion of which we
reproduce below, shows insufficient detail to disclose that the holder is a
device removably mounted as claimed.

Enlargement of a portion of Figure 6 showing holder 74, i.e., gripping
element, and arm 76.
Appeal 2015-007720
Application 11/943,570

4
Thus, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in the rejection of
claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is REVERSED.

REVERSED