11791879 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2013)

Ex Parte Taillandier

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 9, 2013

11791879 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2013)

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. 11/791,879 05/30/2007 Thierry Taillandier 565.1001 1289 23280 7590 04/10/2013 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC 485 7th Avenue 14th Floor New York, NY 10018 EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/10/2013 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 THIERRY TAILLANDIER ____________________ Appeal 2011-000489 Application 11/791,879 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-000489 Application 11/791,879 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15-29. Claims 1-14 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 15 and 29 are independent. Claim 15, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 15. An installation for welding structural elements onto guide tubes of a nuclear fuel assembly skeleton, the installation comprising: at least one structure for receiving and holding guide tubes and structural elements; a carriage movable parallel to the guide tubes; at least one welding tool; and displacement means for moving the welding tool, the displacement means connecting the welding tool to the carriage and presenting at least six degrees of freedom. REJECTIONS 1. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite; 2. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as not being a proper process claim; 3. Claims 15, 17-23, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Thiebaut (FR 2,670,947; pub. Jun. 26, 1992); 4. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thiebaut and Takizawa (JP 05050386 A; pub. Mar. 2, 1993); and Appeal 2011-000489 Application 11/791,879 3 5. Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thiebaut and Oshima (JP 55112182 A; pub. Aug. 29, 1980). OPINION Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. § 101 The Examiner asserts that claim 28 only recites a use without any positive steps involved in the process, making the claim both indefinite and an improper process claim. Ans. 4. However, claim 28 includes the positive step of “welding structural elements to the guide tubes” from claim 27, making the claim both definite and a proper process claim. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph and 35 U.S.C. § 101. Anticipation – Claims 15, 17-23, and 27-29 Claim 15 Claim 15 is directed to an installation for welding structural elements onto guide tubes of a nuclear fuel assembly skeleton and includes displacement means connecting a welding tool to a carriage and presenting at least six degrees of freedom. The Examiner cites Thiebaut as disclosing each of the elements of claim 15. Ans. 5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that “the clamp portion (46) of Thiebaut along with segments (38, 40, 42, 44) all constitute portions of the displacement means since the clamp portion carries the electrodes for welding” and explains that “Thiebaut [] expressly states on page 5, lines 30-35 that the clamp portion of the displacement Appeal 2011-000489 Application 11/791,879 4 means has six degrees of freedom.” Ans. 11. The Examiner finds that a portion of clamp portion 46 also forms the welding tool. Ans. 5. Appellant argues that Thiebaut only has five degrees of freedom for moving the welding tool with respect to the carriage. App. Br. 5. Appellant explains that in Thiebaut, “[a]rm 38 moves in ‘three orthogonal directions,’ wrist 40 rotates ‘about a horizontal axis’ and chuck 42 rotates ‘about an axis orthogonal to the axis of rotation of the wrist.’” Id. (citing Thiebaut, pg. 5, ll. 16-29). Appellant contends that Thiebaut does not disclose the claimed six degrees of freedom because the clamp portion 46 cannot properly be considered part of both the welding tool and the displacement means as a result of claim 15 reciting the welding tool and the displacement means as separate claim elements. Reply. Br. 3. Appellant explains that although the welding clamp 46 of Thiebaut can be considered a welding tool, it cannot be considered a portion of any displacement means. Id. With regard to Appellant’s arguments directed to the welding tool and the displacement means being separate elements, the Examiner does not consider the same part of the welding clamp 46 to be both the welding tool and the displacement means. The Examiner explains that the welding clamp 46 in Thiebaut includes electrodes for welding and a clamp portion that carries the electrodes. Ans. 11. Thus, the electrodes would be the welding tool and the clamp portion would be part of the displacement means. Appellant does not provide any further explanation as to why the clamp portion of the welding tool 46 cannot properly be considered part of the displacement means providing the sixth degree of freedom. For these reasons, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we sustain the rejection of claim 15. Claims 17-23, 27, and 28 depend from Appeal 2011-000489 Application 11/791,879 5 claim 15 and are not argued separately. Therefore, claims 17-23, 27, and 28 fall with claim 15. Claim 19 Claim 19 depends from claim 17 (and ultimately from claim 15) and further recites that “the arm comprises at least three segments articulated one to another.” The Examiner finds that Thiebaut discloses the three segments articulated to one another in Figure 3, with “38 compris[ing] pole at top, rotatable enlarged diameter section, and the wrist pivoting section at the bottom.” Ans. 6. Appellant simply contends that the wrist pivoting section at the bottom is not a segment of the arm and offers no further explanation. App. Br. 6. Appellant has not persuasively explained why the wrist pivoting section cannot be considered a segment of the arm. Accordingly, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we sustain the rejection of claim 19. Claim 20 Claim 20 depends from claim 17 (and ultimately claim 15) and further recites that “at least two segments of the arm are articulated one to another via respective connections allowing movement in rotation about two distinct axes.” The Examiner finds that the axes about which arrows “A” and “B” rotate in Thiebaut disclose the two distinct axes. Ans. 6. Appellant contends that “arrow B is the rotation of the wrist and not the arm as asserted.” App. Br. 6. Again, Appellant has not persuasively explained why the wrist cannot be considered a segment of the arm. Accordingly, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we sustain the rejection of claim 20. Appeal 2011-000489 Application 11/791,879 6 Claim 29 Claim 29 is directed to an installation for welding structural elements onto guide tubes of a nuclear fuel assembly skeleton and includes a connector connecting a welding tool to a carriage and capable of moving the welding tool with at least six degrees of freedom. Appellant relies on arguments similar to those presented above regarding claim 15 for the patentability of claim 29. App. Br. 7. We are not convinced of Examiner error for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 15. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 29. Obviousness – Claims 16 and 24-26 Claim 16 Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and further recites that “the displacement means present at least seven degrees of freedom.” The Examiner finds that Thiebaut teaches each of the claimed features except the seven degrees of freedom. Ans. 8. The Examiner finds that Takizawa teaches seven degrees of freedom for a robot arm mechanism and reasons that it would have been obvious to include the seven degrees of freedom in Thiebaut in order to remove restrictions on arm movement and reduce interference with obstacles. Ans. 8-9 (citing Takizawa, para. [0002]). Appellant’s arguments focus largely on Thiebaut not teaching six degrees of freedom. See App. Br. 8. However, these arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 15. Appellant further argues that Takizawa fails to teach seven degrees of freedom, there is no motivation or reason to combine the teachings of Thiebaut and Takizawa, and that one of skill in the art would have no Appeal 2011-000489 Application 11/791,879 7 motivation or reason to apply the teachings of Takizawa in Thiebaut because Takizawa is not concerned with welding. App. Br. 8. Initially, we note that the Examiner clearly explains that Takizawa teaches a displacement means presenting seven degrees of freedom in at least paragraph [0003]. Ans. 8. The Examiner additionally explains that Takizawa would be combined with Thiebaut to remove restrictions on arm movement and reduce interference with obstacles. Ans. 8-9 (citing Takizawa, para. [0002]). Finally, we note that Appellant has failed to persuasively argue why the robot arm of Takizawa is not at least reasonably pertinent to the robot welding arm of Thiebaut. Thus, Appellant has failed to apprise us of Examiner error and we sustain the rejection of claim 16. Claims 24-26 Claim 24 depends from claim 15 and claims 25 and 26 depend from claim 24. Appellant relies on arguments presented above regarding claim 15 for the patentability of claims 24-26 and argues that Oshima fails to cure alleged deficiencies in Thiebaut. App. Br. 8-9. We disagree that Thiebaut is deficient in rendering the features of claim 15 unpatentable, as discussed above. Appellant further argues that there is no reason to modify Thiebaut in view of Oshima. App. Br. 9. However, the Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify Thiebaut based on Oshima “in order to manually set up coordinates as well as to automatically control the movement of the welding tool in a more accurate manner.” Ans. 10. Appellant has not provided any explanation why the Examiner is incorrect Appeal 2011-000489 Application 11/791,879 8 and, therefore, we are not apprised of Examiner error. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 24-26. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. §112, 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. §101. We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 17-23, and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 16 and 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Klh