Ex Parte RAAB

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2002

08434010 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2002)

-1–
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte SIMON RAAB

Appeal No. 1999-0594
Application No. 08/434,010

ON BRIEF

Before URYNOWICZ, FLEMING and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent
Judges.
URYNOWICZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1-9.
The invention pertains to a method for generating an error
map. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is illustrative and
reads as follows:
1. A method for generating an error map for multi-axis
devices in order to improve the repeatability and/or precision of
multi-axis devices comprising the steps of:
Appeal No. 1999-0594
Application No. 08/434,010
-2–
(1) attaching the measurement arm of a passive three
dimensional coordinate measuring machine (CMM) having multiple
degrees of freedom to a multi-axis device and operating the CMM
through a selected 3-dimensional path or operation which emulates
the desired preselected programmed path or operation of the
multi-axis device;
(2) developing 3-dimensional data of at least one of (a)
position and (b) orientation from step (1) and storing said data,
said data defining the actual path or operation of the multi-axis
device;
(3) comparing the actual path or operation to the desired
preselected programmed path or operation;
(4) generating an error map comparing the actual path or
operation to the desired preselected programmed path or
operation; and
(5) using said error map to improve the repeatability and/or
precision of the multi-axis device.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Vold 4,937,759 Jun. 26, 1990
Taylor et al. (Taylor) 5,007,006 Apr. 09, 1991
Chapman et al. (Chapman) 5,259,120 Nov. 09, 1993
Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Taylor in view of Chapman and Vold.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant
with regard to the propriety of these rejections are set forth in
the final rejection and the examiner’s answer (Paper Nos. 10 and
14, respectively) and the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 13).
Appellant’s Invention
The invention is described at pages 2 and 3 of the brief.
Appeal No. 1999-0594
Application No. 08/434,010
-3–
The Prior Art
Taylor discloses a method and apparatus for dynamically
calibrating a multi-axis machine. The invention of Taylor is
described at page 4, lines 7-12, of the brief and at the last
paragraph of page 2 of the final rejection.
Chapman discloses a coordinate measurement device for use
with multi-axis devices. A ball-bar 26 is coupled to a machine
head 12 to determine error in movement of the machine head. The
head is movable in a three-dimensional manner, i.e., within three
coordinate directions relative to the base 10.
In Figure 1, Vold illustrates apparatus having a plurality
of arm joints 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 which allow the location
and orientation of the tool 16 to be adjustable anywhere within
the working area of the arm device.
Grouping of Claims
At page 3 of the brief, appellant has stated that claims 1-6
and 9 stand or fall together, and that each of claims 7 and 8
stands or falls alone.
Opinion
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented
by both the examiner and the appellant, we have concluded that
Appeal No. 1999-0594
Application No. 08/434,010
-4–
the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9 should be sustained and that
the rejection of claim 8 should be reversed.
Appellant argues that the ball-bar 26 of Chapman is not
equivalent to the claimed coordinate measuring machine (CMM). It
is urged that the logical combination of Taylor and Chapman is to
use the ball-bar taught by Chapman for calibrating the machine or
multi-axis device of Taylor. The contention is made that
although Chapman teaches using the ball-bar with a variety of
devices, it does not suggest combining a CMM having multiple
degrees of freedom to a multi-axis device.
It is submitted that in the two embodiments of Chapman, the
ball-bars measure dimensions in a single, linear axis and,
accordingly, have only one degree of freedom. Whereas claim 1
recites that the CMM has multiple degrees of freedom, the
invention of claim 1 does not result from a combination of Taylor
and Chapman.
We are not persuaded by these arguments. The examiner does
not contend that Chapman’s ball-bar and a CMM are equivalents.
In this respect, it appears that appellant has misconstrued the
examiner’s position. Furthermore, the fact that a logical
combination of Taylor and Chapman may be to use the ball-bar
taught by Chapman for calibrating the multi-axis machine of
Appeal No. 1999-0594
Application No. 08/434,010
-5–
Taylor, alone, is irrelevant. The examiner’s position is to the
effect that a logical combination of the two references is to use
the ball-bar (the “invention” of column 2, line 59) and CMM
combination also taught by Chapman at column 2, lines 57-62, for
calibrating the multi-axis machine of Taylor. The contention
that Chapman does not suggest combining a CMM having multiple
degrees of freedom and a multi-axis device is not controlling.
In the final rejection at page 3, lines 19-22, the examiner
contends that Taylor specifically suggests the combination of the
teachings of the three references by stating that his invention
is intended to be used in conjunction with machines such as CMM’s
and machine tools. This position of the examiner is reasonable
and is not addressed by appellant.
The fact that the ball-bar of Chapman measures dimensions in
a single, linear axis is not evidence that the rejection should
not be sustained. What is relevant in Chapman is that the
spindle or head 12 is movable in three coordinate directions
relative to the table 10; the examiner relies on Taylor for the
teaching of apparatus which develops 3-dimensional data and Vold
for a teaching that CMM’s have multiple degrees of freedom.
With respect to dependent claim 7, it is argued that
Chapman’s ball-bar does not include 6 degrees of freedom.
Appeal No. 1999-0594
Application No. 08/434,010
-6–
This argument is not persuasive because it does not address the
examiner’s position at page 4, lines 8 and 9, of the final
rejection that, at column 6, lines 31-35, Taylor teaches the
ability to analyze six degrees of freedom or at page 5, lines 3
and 4, of the answer that Vold teaches the rotation of various
arm joints in multiple degrees of freedom. As noted above, Vold
teaches seven arm joints. These joints enable at least 6 degrees
of freedom.
We will not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 8
because there is no showing that the combined prior art teaches
or suggests 6 joints wherein each of said joints comprises a
rotational transfer housing for housing a position transducer.
Summary
The rejection of claims 1-7 and 9 is sustained.
The rejection of claim 8 is reversed.
Appeal No. 1999-0594
Application No. 08/434,010
-7–
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
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-0594
Application No. 08/434,010
-8–
SU/RWK
DAVID A.FOX
CANTOR COLBURN LLP
55 GRIFFIN ROAD SOUTH
BLOOMFIELD, CT 06002