2019003871 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2020)

Albert Bayer et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 23, 2020

2019003871 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 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. 12/893,466 09/29/2010 Albert Bayer KUKAR-47 4177 146902 7590 12/23/2020 Dorton & Willis LLP 10260 Alliance Road Suite 210 Cincinnati, OH 45242 EXAMINER ELAHMADI, ZAKARIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3658 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2020 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): hliao@dortonwillis.com uspto@dortonwillis.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALBERT BAYER and GUNTHER MERK Appeal 2019-003871 Application 12/893,466 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR., ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. PESLAK, 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 10, 11, and 13–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 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 KUKA Roboter GmbH. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-003871 Application 12/893,466 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an industrial robot having a weight equalization system. Claim 13 is the only independent claim and is reproduced below. 13. An industrial robot, comprising: a robot arm having a plurality of articulation axes; and a pressurized gas-based weight equalization system operatively coupled with the robot arm, the weight equalization system comprising pressurizable components and operable to react to forces applied to the robot arm for offsetting a load supported thereon; the pressurizable components each having a volume capacity less than 1 liter (61.0 cubic inches), and a maximum pressure capacity less than 1000 bar (14.5 kpsi); wherein the weight equalization system comprises: a pressure cylinder; and at least two pressure accumulators, each operatively coupled with the pressure cylinder. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Lundstrom US 6,848,333 B2 Feb. 1, 2005 Ortmeier Ca. 2,217,224 Oct. 10, 1996 Eaton Catalog Accumulators Catalog July 2005 REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 13–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ortmeier and Eaton Catalog. 2. The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ortmeier, Eaton Catalog, and Lundstrom. Appeal 2019-003871 Application 12/893,466 3 OPINION Rejection 1 In the rejection of claim 13, the Examiner finds that Ortmeier “does not explicitly disclose the pressurizable components each having a volume capacity of less than 1 liter . . . and a maximum pressure capacity less than 1000 bar.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Eaton Catalog teaches accumulators each having volume capacity less than 1 liter and a maximum pressure capacity less than 1000 bar. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Ortmeier by selecting “a specific accumulator volume with a specific pressure or any other pressure value depending on the power needed to provide the robot arm to operate or to deliver a specific or desired force.” Id. Appellant contends that “the Eaton Catalog does not disclose any pressure cylinders, much less pressure cylinders having the claimed volume and pressure capacities” and does not teach or suggest “what the volume and pressure capacities of the pressure cylinder should be relative to the volume and pressure capacities of the accumulators.” Appeal Br. 7. Further, Appellant contends that “even if persons skilled in the art would have modified Ortmeier ’224 to include an accumulator selected from the Eaton Catalog, as alleged, there is no teaching or suggestion to also use a pressure cylinder having the very same volume and pressure capacities as claimed.” Id. at 7–8. The Examiner responds that “Appellant’s argument is based on a narrow interpretation of the claim, as the pressurized components may not necessarily include the pressure cylinder.” Ans. 10. The Examiner asserts that “the pressurized components could be only the two accumulators, both accumulators and the cylinder, or even any other combination of pressure Appeal 2019-003871 Application 12/893,466 4 parts not listed in the claim . . . because the claim requires the equalization system to comprise the cylinder and two accumulators.” Id. According to the Examiner, “the capacity limitations are directed to pressurizable components of the equalization system that are not linked to the cylinder and accumulator in the claim.” Id. at 11. In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends “that the Examiner’s stated interpretation of the claim language is inconsistent with the plain language of the claims and is contrary to the Specification.” Reply Br. 2. For the following reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. Claim 13 recites, inter alia, “a pressurized gas-based weight equalization system . . . comprising pressurizable components,” “the pressurizable components each having a volume capacity less than 1 liter (61.0 cubic inches), and a maximum pressure capacity less than 1000 bar (14.5 kpsi),” and “the weight equalization system comprises: a pressure cylinder; and at least two pressure accumulators, each operatively coupled with the pressure cylinder.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The claim language, thus, does not support the Examiner’s position that the pressurizable components may not include the recited pressure cylinder. The claim also requires that each of the pressurizable components have a volume capacity less than 1 liter and a maximum pressure capacity less than 1000 bar. The Specification is consistent with the claim language and provides that “all pressurized components of weight equalization system 12, i.e., in particular the two pressure accumulators 14, 15 and hydraulic cylinder 13, always have a volume less than 1 liter and a maximum pressure significantly less than 1000 bar.” Spec. 8:34–9:3. Because the Eaton Catalog does not disclose a pressure cylinder with the volume capacity and maximum pressure capacity recited in claim 13, we Appeal 2019-003871 Application 12/893,466 5 do not sustain the rejection of claim 13. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (holding that “[t]he legal conclusion of obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot stand.”). Claims 14–19 depend from claim 13. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). We do not sustain the rejection of claims 14–19 for the same reasons. Rejection 2 Claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 13. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The Examiner’s reliance on Lundstrom does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 13 discussed above. Final Act. 5. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 11 for the same reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. More specifically, DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 13–19 103 Ortmeier, Eaton Catalog 13–19 10, 11 103 Ortmeier, Eaton Catalog, Lundstrom 10, 11 Overall Outcome 10, 11, 13–19 REVERSED