Siemens Aktiengesellschaft

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2021

2020005633 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 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.
15/053,029 02/25/2016 Raimund KRAM 5029-1499/381589 5882
27799 7590 03/24/2021
COZEN O''CONNOR
3WTC, 175 Greenwich Street
55th Floor
NEW YORK, NY 10007
EXAMINER
ESKRIDGE, CORY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2021 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):
patentdocket@cozen.com
patentsecretary@cozen.com
patentsorter@cozen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAIMUND KRAM and ANDREAS SCHWARZ
____________

Appeal 2020-005633
Application 15/053,029
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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
Siemens AG. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2020-005633
Application 15/053,029

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s “invention relates to a method for optimizing a motion
profile, a control device and technical system,” i.e., “a technical system such
as a robot” (Spec. ¶¶ 1, 3.)
Claims 1, 16, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative. It recites:
1. A method for optimizing a motion profile based on a
plurality of partial motion profiles for motion of at least one
actuator via at least two drives of a technical system, the method
comprising:
dividing, by a control device, an original motion profile of
the technical system into the plurality of separate and
independent partial motion profiles;
optimizing, by the control device, the plurality of separate
and independent partial motion profiles of the technical system
separately and independently via at least one optimization
method to form optimized partial motion profiles; and
operating, via at least the control device, the at least two
drives of the technical system based on the motion profile
optimized in accordance with the optimized partial motion
profiles.

REJECTION
Claims 1–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated
by Weinhofer (US 2005/0071021 A1, pub. Mar. 31, 2005).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[A]n invention is anticipated if the same device, including all the
claim limitations, is shown in a single prior art reference. Every element of
the claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as in the claim.”
Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Appeal 2020-005633
Application 15/053,029

3
“Anticipation can occur when a claimed limitation is ‘inherent’ or otherwise
implicit in the relevant reference.” Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor
Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “[T]he mere recitation of
a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in
the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over
the prior art.” In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212–13 (CCPA 1971).

ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, we interpret the claim term “motion profile
optimized” in the third limitation of claim 1. In the preamble, claim 1
recites “optimizing a motion profile” and in the first claim limitation,
claim 1 recites “an original motion profile.” Applying a broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification, we determine that the “motion
profile” that is optimized in the third limitation is the original motion profile.
This is because it is the original motion profile that is divided into the partial
motion profiles in the first limitation, and it is these partial motion profiles
that are optimized in the second limitation. The dividing and optimizing
limitations are not recited as operating on the motion profile recited in the
preamble, even though the antecedent basis for the term “partial motion
profiles” is in the preamble.
The Examiner finds
that paragraph [0008] of Wienhofer [sic] explicitly teaches “a
control method for controls [sic] movement of a controlled
element in a multi-dimensional coordinate system”, wherein an
“original motion profile” is generated “receiving a plurality of
weighting points by way of user instruction”. The method
continues to generate a “plurality of spline segments”, i.e. what
the instant application recites as a [sic] “partial motion profiles”.
Appeal 2020-005633
Application 15/053,029

4
Weinhofer then teaches “generating a plurality of coefficient
vectors ... [and] a plurality of position reference values”,
analogous to “optimizing the partial motion profiles”. The
“position reference values” are expressly divided into “first” and
“second” reference values to control “first” and “second” motion
axis [sic]. The first and second position reference values are
expressly generated separately and independently to control
separate motion axes.

(Answer 3.) The Examiner also finds that
in paragraphs [0060] – [0063], Weinhofer expressly teaches
modifying an existing motion profile (path comprising 82, 84,
86) into an “optimized for smooth path transitions” motion
profile (path comprising 88 and 90). While the FINAL path of
Weinhofer is continuous, there is nothing to suggest that paths
88 and 90 are optimized dependently. The optimization of each
will depend on the desired path of each.

(Id. at 4.)
Appellant argues that “[p]aragraph [0007] of Weinhofer fails to teach
at least the ‘dividing’ step of independent claim 1,” and that “[t]he salient
aspect of Appellants’ claimed invention is the division of an original motion
profile into a plurality of partial motion profiles. Paragraph ([0008]) of
Weinhofer fails to teach this claimed subject matter.” (Appeal Br. 6.)
Appellant’s Specification discloses that “[a] motion profile is, for
example, a motion of an actuator for the achievement of a manipulation
operation. The motion profile can be made up of independent individual
motions, in particular (linear) independent individual motions in linearly
independent directions (of motion).” (Spec. ¶ 75.) In other words, an
independent motion does not depend on another motion, even though the
motions may be related, i.e., they may operate collectively to form the
desired motion profile.
Appeal 2020-005633
Application 15/053,029

5
Appellant’s Specification discloses that the “invention is particularly
suitable for the creation of a motion profile for handling or for pick-and-
place operations.” (Id. ¶ 74.)
Weinhofer discloses “a method and system apparatus for generating
multi-dimensional motion profiles.” (Weinhofer ¶ 2.) Figure 3 of
Weinhofer is reproduced below.

“In [Figure 3], an exemplary two-dimensional path profile is shown which
may be executed, for example, in the context of a pick-and-place system.”
(Id. ¶ 60.)
Weinhofer discloses a system in which
a separate coordinated move instruction may be used to program
each of the segments 82, 84 and 86. In FIG. 3, the path segments
82, 84 and 86 are shown to be linear path segments. For each
linear path segment, the coordinated move instruction may be
used to specify endpoints 92 of the path segment and/or transition
points or other parameters indicating when the move may begin
transitioning from one linear path segment to the next. The
additional transitioning path segments 88 and 90 are generated
automatically by the coordinated move block 72 and do not need
to be specified by the user.

(Id. ¶ 62.) Weinhofer describes the coordinated move block 72 as
“provid[ing] a programmer of the system 10 with user-friendly mechanisms
for controlling motion of multiple motion control axes (e.g., multiple
motors 27) in a coordinated fashion.” (Id. ¶ 57.)
Appeal 2020-005633
Application 15/053,029

6
Weinhofer also discloses that in transitioning between path segments,
i.e., partial paths 82, 84, and 86, “[t]he path segments 88 and 90 may have
shapes which are optimized for smooth path transitions.” (Id. ¶ 60.) In
other words, the original path may be divided into separate partial paths, and
the transition between the separate paths may be optimized for smooth path
transitions. Appellant’s Specification describes optimization as including
“jerk minimization and/or the minimization of vibrations in the technical
system.” (Spec. ¶ 62; see also Reply Br. 4.) Appellant does not
persuasively argue why smooth path transitions do not include jerk
minimization. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that Weinhofer’s disclosure of optimized smooth path transitions is a
disclosure of at least one type of optimization, i.e., jerk minimization. (See
Answer 3–4.)
Weinhofer further discloses that “the coordinated move block 72 may
be used to provide, for example, a linear or circular path in a Cartesian
coordinate system from the current position to a new position.” (Weinhofer
¶ 132.) Weinhofer discloses that “the representation of the path can be
simplified by transforming the move parameters from the original (target)
Cartesian coordinate system to a new (source) Cartesian coordinate system”
(id. ¶ 134) and that “[i]n the source system, the multi-dimensional
coordinated linear move can be separated into multiple individual one-
dimensional moves” (id. ¶ 139). In other words, Weinhofer discloses
separating a path into a plurality of partial motion paths, i.e., related, but
separate and individual/independent paths.
Appeal 2020-005633
Application 15/053,029

7
Appellant, however, argues that
[w]hile paragraph [0139] teaches “the multi-dimensional
coordinated linear move can be separated into multiple
individual one-dimensional moves (m1 ... mn)”, there is no
teaching that these individual paths are divided into separate and
independent partial motion paths, which are then optimized
separately and independently of each other.

(Reply Br. 6.) We do not find this argument persuasive. Claim 1 recites that
it is the original motion path that is divided into the separate and
independent partial motion paths. Claim 1 does not recite a further division
of the partial motion paths. As discussed above, in Weinhofer, the
individual one-dimensional moves correspond to the partial motion paths,
not the original motion path.
Appellant argues that Appellant’s “claimed invention seeks to
improve (optimize) a path after it is determined.” (Appeal Br. 8.) We do
not find this argument persuasive. Weinhofer, in discussing Figure 3,
discloses that after the coordinated move block is given segments 82, 84,
and 86 (with endpoints 92), the coordinated move block generates the
smooth path transition segments 88 and 90, e.g., after being given segments
82 and 84 (with endpoint 92), the coordinated move block generates smooth
path transition 88.
In view of the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1. Claims 2–21 are not separately argued and fall with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2020-005633
Application 15/053,029

8
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
is affirmed.
Specifically:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–21 102(a)(1) Weinhofer 1–21
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