Ex Parte Terada

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 25, 2001

08438492 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 25, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte TOMOYUKI TERADA
__________
Appeal No. 1998-2740
Application 08/438,492
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH and LALL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, which constitute all
the claims in the application. An amendment after final
rejection was filed on December 1, 1997 and was entered by the
examiner.
The disclosed invention pertains to a robot movement
programming method and apparatus for creating a program for
moving a robot along a movement path using an information
Appeal No. 1998-2740
Application 08/438,492

2
processing device.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A robot movement programming method for creating a
program for moving a robot along a movement path using an
information processing device, said method comprising the steps
of:
(a) creating at least one sample program for specifying
sequence patterns of movement of the robot for at least one
sample workpiece, and registering the at least one sample program
in a pattern library;
(b) defining parameters representing geometric quantities
of said sample workpiece for the respective sequence patterns
specified by said sample program created in said step (a);
(c) defining conversion formulas for obtaining position
data of teaching points for determining the movement path using
said parameters for said sample workpiece;
(d) determining the sequence of the robot movement by
selecting one sequence pattern from said sequence patterns
created in said step (a), and registering the at least one sample
program, the one sequence pattern, the parameters, and the
conversion formula in the pattern library for said sample
workpiece;
(e) editing values of said parameters in said conversion
formulas defined for the sequence pattern selected in said step
(d) for a new workpiece of the same or common shape but having
different dimensions;
(f) calculating the teaching point position data with
respect to the movement sequence determined in said step (d), by
software means based on said conversion formulas and said
parameter values for said new workpiece; and
(g) obtaining a robot movement program based on said
teaching point position data calculated in said step (f) for said
new workpiece.
Appeal No. 1998-2740
Application 08/438,492

3
The examiner relies on the following references:
Seki et al. (Seki) 5,113,338 May 12, 1992
Mizuno et al. (Mizuno) 5,485,552 Jan. 16, 1996
(effectively filed Aug. 10, 1992)
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Seki in view of
Mizuno.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims
Appeal No. 1998-2740
Application 08/438,492

4
1-7. Accordingly, we affirm.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this appeal
the claims will all stand or fall together as a single group
[brief, page 7]. Consistent with this indication appellant has
made no separate arguments with respect to any of the claims on
appeal. Accordingly, all the claims before us will stand or fall
together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136,
137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ
1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Therefore, we will consider the rejection
against independent claim 1 as representative of all the claims
on appeal.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why one
having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been led to
modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive
at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem from some
teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art as a whole
Appeal No. 1998-2740
Application 08/438,492

5
or knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in
the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore
Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
These showings by the examiner are an essential part of complying
with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 1, the
Appeal No. 1998-2740
Application 08/438,492

6
examiner indicates how he perceives the invention of claim 1 to
be taught by the disclosure of Seki [answer, pages 4-7]. Of
particular note is the examiner’s position that since Seki
determines the movement path of a tool, then Seki teaches the
conversion formulas of step (c). The examiner cites Mizuno for
the sole purpose of confirming that “teaching points” are simply
specific points along the actual path of movement.
Appellant argues that neither Seki nor Mizuno, alone or
in combination, teaches the features of creating a sample program
and then editing the geometric parameters of the work piece to
create a new robot movement program using conversion formulas as
claimed [brief, page 10]. Appellant asserts that the part
program taught by Seki does not teach the claimed invention which
automatically creates the teaching point positions and robot
movement program based on the edited parameters and conversion
formulas.
The examiner responds that the conversion formulas of
claim 1 are functionally met by Seki because Seki determines tool
movement along a path [answer, page 7]. The examiner goes on to
explain that Seki teaches the automatic determination of a new
program path when a path similar to a stored path is desired
[id., pages 7-8].
Appeal No. 1998-2740
Application 08/438,492

7
Appellant responds that “conversion formulas” are
structural elements and cannot be given a functional definition
as proposed by the examiner. Appellant asserts that the
examiner’s definition of conversion formulas is inconsistent with
the meaning provided in the specification. Appellant also
responds that Mizuno also does not disclose the calculation of
teaching points [reply brief].
We agree with the position argued by the examiner. The
salient question appears to be whether or not Seki teaches the
use of conversion formulas for determining the movement path of a
tool or work piece. We find that Seki does teach this feature of
the claimed invention. As noted by Appellant, a part program is
disclosed by Seki at column 3, lines 20-59. The part program,
however, only tells the robot computer what the initial teaching
points are and how the computer is to move from point to point.
For example, the part program disclosed by Seki indicates that
the robot is to move in a circular arc in approaching the work
piece and then move in five straight line segments, and finally
to withdraw from the work piece in another circular arc. The
actual points (the teaching points) along the desired path,
however, are not provided to the robot computer. These points
have to be calculated by the robot computer of Seki. In other
Appeal No. 1998-2740
Application 08/438,492

8
words, the information that the robot is to move from point P2 to
point P3 in a straight line only tells the robot computer how to
get from point P2 to point P3. The conversion formulas for
determining the ultimate movement path are stored within the
robot computer. Using point P2 and point P3 and the straight
line parameter, Seki calculates the path for actually moving the
robot between point P2 and P3. The remainder of the teaching
points between points P2 and P3 must be calculated by the robot
computer. The computer would have to calculate a different path
if a path other than a straight line was desired. Therefore, we
agree with the examiner that Seki teaches that the path of
movement is based on parameters of the work piece and defined
conversion formulas. These conversion formulas form part of the
robot computer apparatus and mathematically define path movements
using formulas.
Seki permits an operator to machine a new work piece
which is similarly shaped to a stored work piece by simply
replacing the points P2 and P3 etc. and to let the robot computer
automatically recalculate the teaching points (the actual path
movement) based on these new parameters. In our view, the
formulas for actually following a straight line or a circular arc
in Seki are conversion formulas as disclosed and claimed by
Appeal No. 1998-2740
Application 08/438,492

9
appellant. Therefore, we do not agree with appellant that Seki
does not teach the creation of a sample program and then editing
the geometric parameters of a work piece to create a new robot
movement using conversion formulas as claimed.
Since we find that Seki automatically calculates teaching
point positions and robot movement programs based on the edited
parameters and prestored conversion formulas, we are not
persuaded that the examiner has erred in making the rejection of
claims 1-7. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 1-7 is affirmed.
Appeal No. 1998-2740
Application 08/438,492

10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-2740
Application 08/438,492

11
STAAS & HALSEY
700 ELEVENTH STREET, NW, SUITE 500
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
JS:caw