Ex Parte Zurbau

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2018

13885293 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2018)

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