Ex Parte ZurbauDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 24, 201813885293 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/885,293 05/14/2013 26875 7590 08/28/2018 WOOD, HERRON & EV ANS, LLP 2700 CAREW TOWER 441 VINE STREET CINCINNATI, OH 45202 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ovidiu Zurbau 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. WALR-14 3871 EXAMINER SUL TANA, AFROZA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2457 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/28/2018 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 OVIDIU ZURBAU Appeal2018-001839 Application No. 13/885,293 1 Technology Center 2400 Before MARC S. HOFF, THU A. DANG and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellant's invention is a method, system, and computer program product for exchanging systems connected to a robot. The method comprises removing a first system from an arm of the robot and connecting a second system to the arm of the robot. The first and second systems are selectively, alternately, attachable to the arm of the robot. The method further comprises 1 The real party in interest is KUKA Roboter GmbH. Appeal2018-001839 Application No. 13/885,293 detecting interruption in a communication with a first system; removing an address entry for the first system from a communication directory; establishing communication with the second system; and creating an address entry for the second system in the communication directory. See Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method for exchanging systems connected to a robot, which communicate with a robot application, the method comprising: removing a first system from an arm of the robot and connecting a second system to the arm of the robot, the first and second systems being selectively, alternately attachable to the arm of the robot; detecting an interruption in a communication with the first system; removing an address entry for the first system from a communication directory; establishing communication with the second system; and creating an address entry for the second system in the communication directory. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: De Koning US 2008/0040911 Al Feb.21,2008 Guo et al. US 2007 /0291704 Al Dec. 20, 2007 Biisgen et al. US 8,943,188 B2 Jan.27,2015 Masputra US 2012/0254385 Al Oct. 4, 2012 Claims 1 and 5-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over De Koning and Guo. Final Act. 3-9. 2 Appeal2018-001839 Application No. 13/885,293 Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over De Koning, Guo, and Biisgen. Final Act. 9-10; Adv. Act. 2. Claims 3, 4, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over De Koning, Guo, and Masputra. Final Act. 10-11. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Jun. 26, 2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Dec. 14, 2017), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 16, 2017) for their respective details. ISSUE Does the combination of De Koning and Guo disclose or suggest detecting an interruption in a communication with a first system connected to a robot? ANALYSIS CLAIMS 1 AND 5-11 Independent claim 1 recites a method for exchanging systems connected to a robot, comprising removing a first system from an arm of the robot and connecting a second system, including "detecting an interruption in a communication with the first system." Independent claims 10 and 11 recite a similar limitation, adding that detection occurs "when the first system is removed from the arm of the robot." The Examiner finds that De Koning discloses the claimed detection of interruption in communication. Final Act. 4, 8. The Examiner refers the reader to paragraphs 44, 65, and 66 of De Koning as evidence. Paragraph 44 describes interchange station 5 and 3 Appeal2018-001839 Application No. 13/885,293 element changer 6. Interchange station 5 is where storage units can be transported into and out of the robot cell. Changing of tools and other products can be effected via element changer 6. De Koning ,r 44. Paragraph 65 again describes the operation of element changer 6, which functions as the venue to replace tools or products. Paragraph 65 does not mention interruption in communication. Paragraph 66 describes that element changer 6 has a reader to read data carriers that are provided on such items as product holders, tool holders, and tools. The reader communicates with a processor to determine whether a new element may be placed in the location selected, or whether the new element must be placed at an alternative location. De Koning ,r 66. This paragraph also makes no mention of interruption in communication. In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner summarizes the element replacement process, including noting that new elements having data carriers can be read by reader 20. Ans. 3. At the end of the descriptive text, the Examiner concludes that "the data carriers disclosed in De Koning '911 are computers that have network interface cards or IP addresses which must be exchanged or updated in the event of a disconnection/interruption in communication." Ans. 3--4. The Examiner provides no evidentiary support for this assertion, and we do not agree that the data carriers in De Koning have network interface cards or IP addresses. Appellant argues, and we agree, that the data carriers of De Koning are "chips, such as, for example, radio frequency identification (RFID) chips, and self-adhesive labels provided with a suitable 4 Appeal2018-001839 Application No. 13/885,293 bar code." App. Br. 8 (quoting De Koning ,r 53). De Koning's description of its data carriers does not mention anything about network interface cards or IP addresses. We further agree with Appellant, in view of the content of paragraphs 65 and 66 of De Koning discussed supra, that De Koning does not disclose any detection of an interruption in communication with a first system. App. Br. 9. As noted by Appellant, there is no communication disclosed, or needed, between reader 20 and the RFID chip data carriers ( or barcode labels) of De Koning, and no communication that needs to be maintained. Id. In De Koning, the reader reads information from the data carriers and stores the information in database 21. De Koning ,r 61. Given the fact that the data carriers in De Koning comprise RFID chips, or labels with bar codes, and the consequent fact that De Koning does not disclose any communication interruption to be detected, we agree with Appellant that De Koning does not suffer from the problem that is addressed by Gou of the "take-over" of an IP address when a client computer is disconnected from a server having a plurality of clients. App. Br. 11-12. We further agree that the person having ordinary skill in the art would therefore not have been motivated to modify De Koning in view of the teachings of Guo. App. Br. 12. The Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is erroneous. We do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 11, as well as claims 5-9 dependent from claim 1 and not separately argued, over De Koning and Guo. 5 Appeal2018-001839 Application No. 13/885,293 CLAIMS 2--4, 12, AND 13 We have reviewed Biisgen and we find that it does not remedy the deficiencies of De Koning and Guo. Accordingly, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2 and 12 over De Koning, Guo, and Biisgen, for the same reasons given supra with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1. We have reviewed Masputra and we find that it does not remedy the deficiencies of De Koning and Guo. Accordingly, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, and 13 over De Koning, Guo, and Masputra, for the same reasons given supra with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1. CONCLUSION The combination of De Koning and Guo does not disclose or suggest detecting an interruption in a communication with a first system connected to a robot. ORDER The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation