Persimmon Technologies, Corp.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 22, 2021

2020005302 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2021)

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.
15/067,684 03/11/2016 Martin Hosek 101A.0027.U1(US) 5517
29683 7590 04/22/2021
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 RESEARCH DRIVE, Suite 202
SHELTON, CT 06484-6212
EXAMINER
MCCLAIN, GERALD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2021 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):
USPTO@HSPATENT.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARTIN HOSEK, LEONARD T. LILLISTON, and
JACOB LIPCON
____________

Appeal 2020-005302
Application 15/067,684
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 26–28, 30, and 31. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Persimmon
Technologies Corporation. (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-005302
Application 15/067,684

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a robot having slaved
end effector motion (Spec., para. 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.

1. A transport apparatus, comprising:
a drive unit having a first drive axis rotatable about a
first axis of rotation and a second drive axis rotatable about a second
axis of rotation, the second drive axis being coaxial with and partially
within the first drive axis and axially rotatable within the first drive
axis;
a robot arm comprising,
an upper arm connected to the drive unit at the first drive
axis,
a forearm coupled to the upper arm, the forearm being coupled
to the upper arm at a first rotary joint and rotatable about the first
rotary joint, the first rotary joint being actuatable by a first band
arrangement coupled to the second drive axis, and
an end effector coupled to the forearm, the end effector being
coupled to the forearm at a second rotary joint and rotatable about the
second rotary joint, the second rotary joint being actuatable by a
second band arrangement coupled to the first rotary joint, wherein the
second band arrangement is configured to provide a transmission that
varies a ratio of a speed of rotation of the end effector about the
second rotary joint relative to a speed of rotation of the forearm about
the first rotary joint, wherein a nominal center of the end effector is
configured to follow a predetermined path with a predetermined non-
constant orientation of the end effector.

Appeal 2020-005302
Application 15/067,684

3

THE REJECTION
The following rejections is before us for review:
Claims 1–3 and 26–28, 30, and 312 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Caveney (US 2007/0020082 A1; Jan. 25,
2007).

FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.3

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose the claim
limitation in claim 1 which requires:
“the second band arrangement is configured to provide a
transmission that varies a ratio of a speed of rotation of the end
effector about the second rotary joint relative to a speed of rotation of
the forearm about the first rotary joint”

(Appeal Br. 9, emphasis original, see also Reply Br. 2).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper (Final Act. 3, 4; Ans. 3–6).
We agree with the Examiner. Here, the Appellant has not argued that
cited prior art fails to disclose any claimed elements such as the “second

2 The Examiner’s Answer at page 3 indicates that the rejection of claims 1–4
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and claims 4 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
are withdrawn.
3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2020-005302
Application 15/067,684

4

band arrangement,” “end effector,” or the first and second “rotary joint[s]”
in the cited claim limitation. Rather, the Appellant argues that the disclosed
structure of the second band arrangement is not configured so that it “varies
a ratio of a speed of rotation of the end effector about the second rotary
joint relative to a speed of rotation of the forearm about the first rotary
joint” in functioning as claimed. The Specification at page 12, lines 23–27,
states that the band arrangement 58 may comprise elements such as an
“elbow pulley” and “wrist pulley” and thus the term “band arrangement” is
considered broad enough to encompass pulleys for instance in the drive
system. Here, Caveney at Fig. 6 discloses an end effector (203), second
rotary joint (Z2), and a forearm (201) attached to a first rotatory joint (Z1).
Caveney at paragraph 31 discloses first and second transmissions (620, 610)
which serve as a first band arrangement and which will drive rotation of the
second joint and can have the diameter ratio between the idler and drive
pulleys varied. Caveney at paragraph 33 discloses another transmission
including a belt or band (752, 751) which serves as a second band
arrangement and which will drive the third joint, and can also have the ratio
between the idler and drive pulleys varied. Thus, Caveney discloses a
“second band arrangement” (752, 751) for the third joint axis (Z3) which is
connected to the end effector. As the “second band arrangement” (752, 751)
may have the diameter ratio between the idler drive and pulleys varied, the
transmission can be adjusted for different rotational speeds. Here, the cited
arrangement in Caveney is capable of varying a ratio of the transmission for
the second band arrangement which provides the end effector (203) to move
at a rotational speed different from that of the forearm about the first rotary
joint. Thus, Caveney discloses a “second band arrangement is configured to
Appeal 2020-005302
Application 15/067,684

5

provide a transmission that varies a ratio of a speed of rotation of the end
effector about the second rotary joint relative to a speed of rotation of the
forearm about the first rotary joint” in the manner described above and
arguments for the cited claim limitation not being shown in the prior art are
not persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The
Appellant has provided the same arguments for the remaining claims and the
rejection of these claims is sustained for the same reasons given above.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1–3 and 26–28, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Caveney.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 26–28,
30, 31
102(a)(1) Caveney 1–3, 26–28,
30, 31

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).
AFFIRMED