Ex Parte Sonner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

13122904 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

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.
13/122,904 05/20/2011 Christian Sonner FUBO-10 3436
26875 7590 12/02/2016
WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ, CARLOS R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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):
usptodock@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN SONNER,
MARTIN WEISS, and UWE ZIMMERMANN
Appeal 2015-002553
Application 13/122,904
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 13—24, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is KUKA Roboter
GmbH. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-002553
Application 13/122,904
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the “[t]he invention relates to an
industrial robot and a method for controlling the movement of an industrial
robot.” Spec. 1:4—5.2 More particularly, “a robot arm and an end effector is
controlled by a controller that generates first and second transformed
programmed points, plans first and second paths based on the first and
second programmed points, and moves the robot so that a designated point
on the robot moves on the first planned path and process points associated
with the end effector move on the second planned path.” Abstract.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 13 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims
under consideration and reads as follows:
13. A path planning method for controlling the motion of an
industrial robot, to whose robot arm an effector, in particular a
remote laser welding device, is attached, which is provided for
processing process points at a variable distance from a first
designated point of the industrial robot, having the following
procedural steps:
generating first transformed programmed points, from
programmed points which each describe positions of axes of the
industrial robot or are expressed in coordinates that describe a
position and orientation of the first designated point assigned to
the industrial robot, each first transformed programmed point
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed May 20, 2011; “Int. Sum.” for the Interview Summary,
dated September 13, 2013; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action, mailed
September 26, 2013; “Adv. Act.” for the Advisory Action, mailed
December 4, 2013; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed June 5, 2014;
“Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 23, 2014; and
“Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed December 23, 2014.
2
Appeal 2015-002553
Application 13/122,904
being expressed in coordinates that specify each corresponding
position of a second designated point assigned to the industrial
robot;
generating second transformed programmed points from
the programmed points and each corresponding variable
distance, the second transformed programmed points being
expressed in coordinates that describe each respective position
of each process point;
planning a first path, on the basis of the first transformed
programmed points, on which the second designated point is to
move;
planning a second path, on the basis of the second
transformed programmed points, independently of the planning
of the first path;
defining a parameter for each programmed point that
describes a degree of freedom of the industrial robot with
attached effector; and
moving the axes of the industrial robot, with attention to
the defined parameter, in such a way that the second designated
point moves on the first planned path, and adjusting the effector
so that the process points move on the second planned path.
App. Br. 15—16 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Tawel US 5,371,834 Dec. 6, 1994
Terada et al. (“Terada”) US 6,321,139 B1 Nov. 20, 2001
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 13—14, 16—21, and 23—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tawel and Terada. Final Act. 4—13; App.
Br. 3.
3
Appeal 2015-002553
Application 13/122,904
Claims 15 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tawel, Terada, and admitted prior art. Final Act. 13—15;
App. Br. 3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 13—24 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We adopt the Examiner’s
findings in the Final Office Action and Answer. We add the following
primarily for emphasis. For the reasons explained below, we disagree with
Appellants’ assertions regarding error by the Examiner.
The Rejection of Claims 13, 14, 19, and 20 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
According to Appellants, independent claims 13 and 14 are “directed
to path planning methods for controlling the motion of an industrial robot
having a remote laser welding device,” while independent claims 19 and 20
are “directed to industrial robots having a robot arm, a remote laser welding
device attached to the robot arm, and a control device configured to
implement steps similar to those set forth in claims 13 and 14.” App. Br.
8—9. Appellants argue claims 13, 14, 19, and 20 as a group. Id. at 8—13;
Reply Br. 2—4. Consequently, we focus our analysis on claim 13 as
representative of the independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Generating First and Second
Transformed Programmed Points
Appellants argue that Tawel and Terada do not teach or suggest
“generating first transformed program points” and “generating second
transformed program points” according to claim 13. App. Br. 10-12; Reply
Br. 2-4. In particular, Appellants contend that the references do not teach or
suggest transforming the “specific types of points” set forth in the claim, i.e.,
4
Appeal 2015-002553
Application 13/122,904
(1) “programmed points” based on “positions of axes” or a “first designated
point” used for generating the “first transformed program points” and
(2) “programmed points” and a “variable distance from the first designated
point” used for generating the “second transformed program points.” App.
Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 3^4. Appellants also contend that the references do
not teach or suggest “first transformed program points” and “second
transformed program points” that are “expressed in coordinates” relating to
other points, i.e., (1) “first transformed program points” relating to a “second
designated point” and (2) “second transformed program points” relating to a
“process point.” App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 3^4.
Appellants note, however, that the Examiner “interprets the claimed
‘transformed programmed points’ as ‘points that at some point had to be
transformed and stored in a memory of a computing unit.’” App. Br. 11
(quoting Adv. Act. 2). Appellants then assert that the Examiner’s
interpretation “is inconsistent with the claim language.” App. Br. 11—12.
But Appellants do not explain the alleged inconsistency. Id. at 12.
We discern no error in the Examiner’s interpretation of “transformed
program points.” “[DJuring examination proceedings, claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Inventors can act as their own
lexicographers if they clearly set forth a definition of a claim term or phrase
other than its plain and ordinary meaning. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v.
MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 677 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, Appellants
do not contend that the Specification sets forth a definition for “transformed
program points.” App. Br. 10—12; Reply Br. 2^4. To the contrary, the
Specification broadly refers to “a transformation stored in [a] control
5
Appeal 2015-002553
Application 13/122,904
computer” and states that various paths “result from appropriate
transformations, which are the result of the geometry of robot hand 4 and
may be derived for example from Figure 2.” Spec. 14:27—15:1. Figure 2
illustrates “a geometric relationship of the hand root point, the tool center
point and a process path of the industrial robot.” Id. 11:22—24, Fig. 2.
Figure 2 does not depict any transformations.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in applying the claim language to the references. The Examiner finds that
the “origin of any joint of the robot” in Tawel corresponds to a “first
designated point” and that “[ajnother point near said point on said joint”
corresponds to a “second designated point.” Int. Sum. 3. The Examiner also
finds that Tawel teaches “transforming” points and “generating transformed
points” because “Tawel teaches that any point in space can be transformed
to be specified by three orthogonal translations from the origin.” Ans. 2; see
Int. Sum. 3; Adv. Act. 2. For claim 13 ’s requirement that “transformed
program points” be “expressed in coordinates” relating to other points, the
Examiner reasons that this corresponds to expressing the respective points
using the same coordinate system. Int. Sum. 3. The Examiner then reasons
that “the origin of any point on any joint of the robot expressed in terms of a
coordinate system, is considered a first transformed point” and that “any
point on the end effector” corresponds to the “second transformed program
points.” Id. at 3^4; see Ans. 2.
Appellants argue that “the broad disclosure of transforming points in
order to express the location of the points in a different reference frame does
not teach or suggest generating the specific transformed points recited in the
claims.” Reply Br. 3. But Appellants do not address the Examiner’s
6
Appeal 2015-002553
Application 13/122,904
application of the claim language to Tawel. Id. at 2-4; see App. Br. 10-12.
Thus, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding that Tawel teaches “generating first transformed program points”
and “generating second transformed program points” according to claim 13.
See Int. Sum. 3—\\ Final Act. 3—6; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 2.
Planning First and Second Paths Based on the
First and Second Transformed Programmed Points
Claim 13 recites “planning a first path” based on “the first
transformed programmed points” and “planning a second path” based on
“the second transformed programmed points.” App. Br. 15 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Tawel teaches the path-planning limitations. Int.
Sum. 4; Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue that Tawel does not teach or suggest the path­
planning limitations because Tawel does not teach or suggest generating the
first and second transformed program points that provide the bases for
planning the first and second paths. App. Br. 12. As discussed above,
however, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in finding that Tawel teaches generating the first and second
transformed program points. Similarly, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that Tawel teaches
“planning a first path” and “planning a second path.” For instance,
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s application of the claim language
to Tawel. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3^4.
“Defining a Parameter” and “Moving the Axes of the
Industrial Robot, with Attention to the Defined Parameter”
The Examiner finds that Tawel teaches the limitations in claim 13
concerning “defining a parameter” and “moving the axes of the industrial
7
Appeal 2015-002553
Application 13/122,904
robot, with attention to the defined parameter.” Int. Sum. 4; see Final Act. 5.
In particular, the Examiner determines that in Tawel that “the robot joints
move[] along the first path, [and] the end effector also moves,” with
movement of “the end effector from one position to another” corresponding
to the “moving of process points.” Int. Sum. 4.
Appellants argue that Tawel does not teach or suggest these
limitations in claim 13 because (1) the Examiner admits that Tawel “does
not include a laser welding device (or any other device) that adds an
additional degree of freedom to an industrial robot” and (2) without such a
device, Tawel cannot teach or suggest “a parameter for each programmed
point that describes a degree of freedom of the industrial robot with attached
effector” according to claim 13. App. Br. 12—13. Appellants also argue that
Terada fails to cure Tawel’s deficiency. Id.
We agree with the Examiner, however, that the claim language “does
not clearly recite how the claimed parameters are specifically limited to laser
technology.” Ans. 2—3. For example, claim 13 recites “a parameter . . . that
describes a degree of freedom” rather than “a parameter . . . that describes
an additional degree of freedom.” App. Br. 16 (emphasis added).
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with claim 13 and do
not apprise us of error.
Summary for Claim 13 and
the Other Independent Claims
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 for obviousness
based on Tawel and Terada. Because Appellants do not argue independent
claims 14, 19, and 20 separately from claim 13, they stand or fall with
8
Appeal 2015-002553
Application 13/122,904
claim 13. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Hence, we sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 13, 14, 19, and 20.
The Rejection of Claims 16—18, 21,
23, and 24 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 16—18 depend from claim 13, while claims 21, 23, and 24
depend from claim 19. App. Br. 17, 20 (Claims App.). Appellants do not
present any separate patentability arguments for these dependent claims.
App. Br. 8—14; Reply Br. 2—4. Because Appellants do not argue these
dependent claims separately, we sustain the rejection of the dependent
claims for the reasons applicable to the independent claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Rejection of Claims 15 and 22 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 15 depends from claim 13, while claim 22 depends from
claim 19. App. Br. 17, 20 (Claims App.). Claims 15 and 22 specify that
“the first designated point is a tool center point of the industrial robot.” Id.
at 17, 20. The obviousness rejection of claims 15 and 22 rests on Tawel,
Terada, and a statement in the Specification that “[cjonventionally, all
degrees of freedom are indicated specifically for controlling the industrial
robot... by defining Cartesian tool center point (TCP) values (x, y, z, a, b,
c) plus possibly additional axis values . . . .” Final Act. 13—15; see Spec.
1:22-26.
Appellants “assert that claims 15 and 22 are in condition for
allowance for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to
independent claims 13 and 19, and because the alleged AAPA fails to cure
the deficiencies of Tawel ’834 and Terada ’139 discussed” with respect to
the independent claims. App. Br. 14. Appellants do not articulate any
9
Appeal 2015-002553
Application 13/122,904
patentability arguments for claims 15 and 22 beyond the arguments
regarding the independent claims. Id. Because Appellants do not argue
these dependent claims separately, they stand or fall with the independent
claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Hence, we sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 15 and 22.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13—24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10