INOUE, Kozo

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 12, 2020

14166581 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2020)

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.
14/166,581 01/28/2014 Kozo INOUE 4639-317 9048
22429 7590 03/12/2020
HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP
2318 Mill Road
Suite 1400
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
FERNANDEZ RIVAS, OMAR F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2020 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):
docketing@ipfirm.com
pair_lhhb@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KOZO INOUE
Appeal 2019-000480
Application 14/166,581
Technology Center 2100

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BETH Z. SHAW, and SCOTT B. HOWARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 8, and 9. See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as FANUC
CORPORATION. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000480
Application 14/166,581
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a simulation device for carrying out
simulation based on robot program. Claims 1, 4, and 8, reproduced below,
are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A simulation device comprising a processor
configured to perform a simulation of a robot based on a robot
program,
wherein the processor of the simulation device is further
configured to use a separate file which is different from the robot
program,
wherein the separate file includes a plurality of lines each
corresponding to one line of the robot program,
wherein the separate file includes, in a line among the
plurality of lines of the separate file, a command for setting a
status of a signal or a command for setting a value of a data
register, the command being described corresponding to a line of
the robot program, the status and the value being referenced and
provided from the separate file to the robot program by executing
the line of the robot program,
wherein the status of the signal or the value of the data
register described corresponding to the line in execution of the
robot program is changed based on the command in
synchronization with the line in execution of the robot program,
when the simulation is performed.
4. A simulation device comprising a processor configured
to perform a simulation of a robot based on a robot program,
wherein the processor of the simulation device is further
configured to use a separate file which is different from the robot
program,
wherein the separate file includes a plurality of lines each
corresponding to one line of the robot program,
wherein the separate file includes, in a line among the
plurality of lines of the separate file, a command for setting a
status of a signal or a command for setting a value of a data
register, the command being described corresponding to a line of
the robot program, the status and the value being referenced and
Appeal 2019-000480
Application 14/166,581
3
provided from the separate file to the robot program by executing
the corresponding line of the robot program,
wherein the command includes a specification of a delay
time, and the status of the signal or the value of the data register
is set to a status or a value to be set after the delay time has passed
from when the corresponding line of the robot program is
executed.

8. The simulation device as set forth in claim 1, wherein
the separate file represents feedback signals from
peripheral equipment other than the robot being controlled by the
robot program, and
the peripheral equipment is configured
to perform operations in response to output signals from
the robot, and
to provide the feedback signals to the robot upon
completion of the operations.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Minto US 2009/0271169 A1 Oct. 29, 2009
IPS Dynamic Training
Simulator System for
a Generic IGCC
Plant, 3–55
Dec. 2008
Nagatsuka US 2007/0282485 A1 Dec. 6, 2007
REJECTION
Claims 1–5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combination of Minto, IPS, and Nagatsuka.
Appeal 2019-000480
Application 14/166,581
4

OPINION
Claim 1
Appellant argues the Examiner has failed to point out how the prior
art teaches or suggests “the status and the value being referenced and
provided from the separate file to the robot program by executing the line of
the robot program” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8–9. In particular,
Appellant argues that IPS, at most, teaches a malfunction initiated in
synchronization with executing the line in the simulation program, not by
executing. Id. at 10. Additionally, Appellant argues that the cited portion of
IPS that describes a malfunction is merely describing that the severity of a
malfunction can vary instantaneously. Id. at 11–12. Appellant also argues
that the cited portion of IPS describes a timing relationship between a
malfunction and another malfunction, not executing a line. Id. And,
Appellant argues, IPS does not describe how malfunctions are inserted from
the Instructor Station. Id. at 13. At most, Appellant argues, the combination
of Minto and IPS simply describes that malfunctions can be inserted from
the Instructor Station. Appeal Br. 15–16.
Claim 1 recites that a status and value are provided from a separate
file to a robot “by executing the line of the robot program.” Appellant does
not point us to the Specification to explain the term “executing.” As it is
known in the art, execute is “[t]o perform an instruction. In programming,
execution implies loading the machine code of the program into memory and
then performing the instructions.” MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 336
(5th ed. 2002). Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, “by
executing” is simply performing an instruction.
Appeal 2019-000480
Application 14/166,581
5
Given this construction, Appellant provides insufficient evidence
showing that the Specification or claims limit “by executing” in a way that,
under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not at least suggested by IPS’s
teachings of inserting a malfunction, as described in IPS pages 41 and 53.
Regardless of the general contentions articulated by Appellant in the Appeal
Brief, “[i]t is the claims that measure the invention.” See SRI Int’l v.
Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en
banc) (citations omitted). The Examiner explains, and we agree, that IPS
describes that a malfunction may occur at any time or with a preset time
delay. Ans. 6. When a malfunction is initiated, the corresponding line in the
simulation program modeling the equipment will respond to the inserted
malfunction. Id. at 8. Moreover, Minto describes that an “instructor may
input instructions that insert malfunctions into the simulated engineering
projected.” Ans. 8 (citing Minto ¶ 133). As the Examiner explains,
equipment failure would not happen if the simulated program is not
executing. Ans. 8–9.
Accordingly, giving the disputed limitation the broadest reasonable
construction, we agree that the combination of Minto and IPS teach or
suggest “the status and the value being referenced and provided from the
separate file to the robot program by executing the line of the robot
program,” as recited in claim 1. In other words, the broadest reasonable
construction of “by executing” as recited in claim 1 does not preclude an
instructor providing the initial code or data for the robot program. We
therefore sustain the rejection of claim 1.

Appeal 2019-000480
Application 14/166,581
6
Dependent Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites, “wherein the robot
program includes a logic command which, when executed, references the
status of the signal and/or the value of the data register from the separate
file.” Appeal Br. 18. Appellant argues the Examiner has failed to show
address “the robot program includes a logic command which, when
executed.” Id. at 18–19. Appellant argues that Minto and IPS merely
describe that such references, if they existed, would be caused by the
insertion of malfunctions from the Instructor Station 330. Id.
Minto describes how an instructor may input “instructions intended to
modify the execution of the training simulator.” Minto ¶ 133. IPS also
describes malfunction initiation. IPS, p. 41. The Examiner explains that even
if a malfunction is initiated at an instructor station, the simulated
malfunction would not happen if the simulated project (i.e., code) is not
executing. Ans. 9.
As explained above with respect to claim 1, under its broadest
reasonable interpretation, to execute is to perform an instruction. Giving the
disputed limitation of claim 3 the broadest reasonable construction, we agree
with the Examiner that Minto’s program and IPS’s malfunction initiation
teaches the robot program includes a logic command, which must be
executed by a program, and which, when executed, references the status of
the signal or value of the data register from the separate file. Id.; Final Act. 7
(citing Minto ¶ 133). We agree with the Examiner that even if the logic
command is initiated at the instructor station, the simulated equipment
failure would not happen if the simulation project/program is not executing.
Ans. 9–10. As the Examiner explains, claim 3 further limits “the line” of the
robot program of claim 1 to include the “logic command,” which is taught
Appeal 2019-000480
Application 14/166,581
7
by the simulation program because at least the status of the signal, i.e., a
logic value, is referenced by a logic command. Id.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 3.

Dependent Claim 8
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not pointed to any teaching in
IPS of “feedback signals from peripheral equipment . . . to the robot upon
completion of the operations,” as recited in claim 8. We agree with
Appellant. IPS describes “Remote Functions” that allow an operated to
operate equipment in the simulation for which the control room operator has
no control. IPS, p. 42. The Examiner concludes that the status or value of the
equipment is only to be used in the simulation “to provide the feedback
signal during the whole simulation including a completion of an operation.”
Ans. 11. Yet, claim 8 requires the peripheral equipment to “provide the
feedback signals to the robot upon completion of the operations.” (Emphasis
added). The Examiner does not point to a portion of the cited references that
teach or suggest this temporal limitation, i.e., “upon completion.”
Accordingly, on this record, we reverse the rejection of dependent claim 8.

Independent Claim 4
Appellant argues that IPS does not teach “wherein the command
includes a specification of a delay time, and the status of the signal or the
value of the data register is set to a status or a value to be set after the delay
time has passed from when the corresponding line of the robot program is
executed,” as recited in claim 4. Appeal Br. 21. The Examiner points to
IPS’s description of the fact that “malfunctions may occur singly,
Appeal 2019-000480
Application 14/166,581
8
simultaneously, or sequentially at any specific time or with a preset time
delay,” as teaching the disputed limitation. Ans. 13.
Claim 4 recites, in part, “wherein the command includes a
specification of a delay time, and the status of the signal or the value of the
data register is set to a status.” The claim goes on to recite “or a value to be
set after the delay time has passed from when the corresponding line of the
robot program is executed.” Our emphasis underscores that the “or” means
that only “the status of the signal or the value of the data register is set to a
status” need be taught or suggested by the cited prior art to satisfy the claim.
We agree with the Examiner that IPS teaches that a malfunction may occur
if the instructor has initiated a malfunction with a preset time delay. Id.
Notably, Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions in this regard apart from an unsupported argument that the
preset time delay is from a prior malfunction. Reply Br. 16. Even if we were
to accept Appellants’ contention that the preset time delay is from a prior
malfunction, Appellant does not dispute Examiner’s findings and
conclusions regarding the command including a specification of a time delay
and the status of the signal or the value of a data register is set to a status.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 4.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1–5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We reverse the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-000480
Application 14/166,581
9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 8, 9 103 Minto, IPS, Nagatsuka 1–5, 9 8

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv) (2017).
AFFIRMED IN PART