Lutz RebstockDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 30, 20212020003990 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 12/817,310 06/17/2010 Lutz Rebstock 1229P015331-US(PAR) 5277 106446 7590 08/30/2021 Perman & Green, LLP 99 Hawley Lane Stratford, CT 06614 EXAMINER CARRILLO, BIBI SHARIDAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1711 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2021 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 LUTZ REBSTOCK ____________ Appeal 2020-003990 Application 12/817,310 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellant timely requests1 rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 of our Decision2 affirming the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 7–11, 19–21, 24, 27, 28, and 31–39. We have considered Appellant’s request (Req. 1–9), and grant Appellant’s requested relief. 1 Request for Rehearing dated August 16, 2021 (“Req.”). 2 Decision on Appeal dated June 14, 2021 (“Dec.”). Appeal 2020-003990 Application 12/817,310 2 Each of the independent claims 7 and 21 requires disassembly of an article “on-the-fly during the article” passing or moving, (i.e., during movement) from one station to another station. Independent claim 24 requires unlocking multiple portions of an article which are locked “coincident with the article moving from the first station to the second station.” Thus, each of the claims on appeal require disassembly or locking of an article during movement. In our Decision, we understood one of Appellant’s arguments on appeal to be one of “a direct substitution of Miyamoto’s robot into AAPA’s method” 3 and were unpersuaded by that argument. Dec. 5–6. On rehearing, Appellant’s argument is better developed and we now consider it persuasive. Specifically, Appellant argues on rehearing that “the Examiner’s rejection . . . hinges on teaching of a single robot performing each of the carrying, placing, and particularly assembly/disassembly functions (i.e., multiple dissimilar functions),” but that Miyamoto’s robot is not capable of carrying out such “multiple dissimilar functions.” Req. 2; see also id. at 3 (where Appellant identifies such “dissimilar” functions as “carrying and disassembling”). Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner has not shown how or why the robot in Miyamoto (that performs the ‘multiple’ functions of picking/ placing items) evinces a robot having [] multiple dissimilar functions (i.e. picking/placing and disassembly/assembly coincident with moving of the article).” Id. 3 On appeal, Appellant argued “[t]here is simply nothing in Miyamoto that would lead one skilled in the art to modify or replace the basic articulated robot 3 of Miyamoto as suggested by the Examiner.” Appeal Br. 11. Appeal 2020-003990 Application 12/817,310 3 Consulting Miyamoto––a machine translation from Japanese into English––it is not clear whether Miyamoto’s robot4 performs the “carry” (i.e., moving) and “separation,” (i.e., disassembly) steps recited in claims 7 and 21, or whether pod placing part 2 performs the separation step. See, e.g., Miyamoto ¶ 52 (“It is effective in the ability of a robot to perform separation or assembly operation automatically by the one aforementioned pod placing part by having the composition which provides the robot which performs separation, an assembly, or a carry process” (emphasis added)); see also id. ¶ 16 (“separation or assembly operation of the aforementioned pod can be performed by a pod placing part”). Even interpreting Miyamoto’s singular robot as being capable of carrying and separating an article, the Examiner has not sufficiently identified disclosure within the prior art that would apprise the skilled artisan of how Miyamoto’s single robot alone could, e.g., “disassemble[] the multiple portions of the article on- the-fly during the article moving from the first station to a second station” (claim 21). The Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 suffers from a similar deficiency with respect to locking an article during movement. Final Act. 6– 10; Ans. 7–8. For these reasons, we grant Appellant’s rehearing request. CONCLUSION Appellant’s Request is granted. 4 While the Examiner does not specifically identify “robot 3” in the rejection, the only robot referenced in Miyamoto’s paragraph 27 cited by the Examiner is “robot 3.” Final Act. 5; Miyamoto ¶ 27. Appeal 2020-003990 Application 12/817,310 4 Outcome of Decision on Rehearing: Claims 35 U.S.C § Reference(s)/Basis Denied Granted 7–11, 19– 21, 24, 27, 28, 31–39 103(a) AAPA, Miyamoto, Barker 7–11, 19– 21, 24, 27, 28, 31–39 Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing: Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 7–11, 19– 21, 24, 27, 28, 31–39 103(a) AAPA, Miyamoto, Barker 7–11, 19– 21, 24, 27, 28, 31–39 GRANTED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation