Ex Parte Fletcher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2013

11581094 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MITCHELL S. FLETCHER, RANDALL H. BLACK, and
ANDREW J. MICHALICEK
____________________

Appeal 2011-003288
Application 11/581,094
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JAMES P. CALVE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003288
Application 11/581,094

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6-15, and 21. Claim 5 has been cancelled and
claims 16-20 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below:
1. A robotic system comprising:
a plurality of robotic elements, each having
at least one processing component, at least one
memory component, and an I/O interface residing
in each of the robotic elements; and
a virtual backplane coupling the plurality of
robotic elements, wherein each of the plurality of
robotic elements includes system tables saved in
the at least one memory component to control data
transfers to and from the plurality of robotic
elements and the virtual backplane.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Byrne (US 6,687,571 B1; iss. Feb. 3,
2004) and Benedyk (US 7,525,997 B2; iss. Apr. 28, 2009);
2. Claims 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Byrne, Benedyk, and Hara (US 2004/0210344 A1; pub.
Oct. 21, 2004);
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Byrne, Benedyk, and Duron (US 7,290,180 B2; iss. Oct. 30, 2007);
Appeal 2011-003288
Application 11/581,094

3
4. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Byrne, Benedyk, and Heitmann (US 2005/0273200 A1; pub. Dec. 8,
2005); and
5. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Byrne, Benedyk, and Sabe (US 2005/0090935 A1; pub. Apr. 28, 2005).

OPINION
Claim 1 is directed to a robotic system including a plurality of robotic
elements and a virtual backplane coupling the robotic elements and recites
that “each of the plurality of robotic elements includes system tables saved
in the at least one memory component to control data transfers to and from
the plurality of robotic elements and the virtual backplane.” The Examiner
finds that column 10, lines 27-37 of Byrne inherently teaches the claimed
system tables “in the way it teaches event action pairs.” Ans. 4. Appellants
argue that Byrne does not necessarily include system tables saved in the
memory of the robotic elements to control data transfers between the robotic
elements and the virtual backplane. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 6-7. We agree.
While the Examiner finds that Byrne discloses a series of steps for
cooperative search control of robots, the Examiner has not pointed to
anything indicating why the claimed search tables are necessarily present in
Byrne. Column 10, lines 27-37 of Byrne (relied on by the Examiner) discuss
steps including information collection and sharing among robots to facilitate
a search performed by the robots until a stop criterion is met. When
explaining how the search is carried out by the robots, Byrne simply
indicates that “the cooperative search controller . . . is distributed and
independently executed on each robot’s processor” and “the cooperative
Appeal 2011-003288
Application 11/581,094

4
controller is responsive to sensor readings from multiple robots and
generates a control strategy determined from a sensor reading and a multi-
robot cooperative approximation to a search.” Byrne, col. 8, l. 65 – col. 9, l.
4.
Based on Byrne’s limited disclosure regarding the manner in which
the search steps are carried out by the robots and the lack of further
explanation from the Examiner, we are not convinced that Byrne inherently
discloses the claimed system tables. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745
(Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set
of circumstances is not sufficient.”). Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1 and claims 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 21, which depend from claim
1.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 13 depend from claim 1 and the stated bases
for the rejections of claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 13 do not cure the deficiency in
the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of
claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 13.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections.

REVERSED

Klh