Ex Parte Richards et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2018

14709785 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/709,785 05/12/2015 Paul N. Richards
86185 7590 12/21/2018
Simpson & Simpson, PLLC
5555 Main Street
Williamsville, NY 14221-5406
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
20140835-US-NP/
XERP180US
CONFIRMATION NO.
1197
EXAMINER
SANDERS, HOW ARD J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2018 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):
patentEFS@idealawyers.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL N. RICHARDS, RUI AMORIM, and
GAITH 0. ZA YED
Appeal2018-005389
Application 14/709,785
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Xerox Corporation (Appellant) 1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated June
27, 2017 ("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14--22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Xerox Corporation ("Appellant") is the applicant, according to 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-005389
Application 14/709,785
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 14 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced
below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for picking a product, comprising:
a control circuit;
at least one vacuum cup arranged to:
create negative pressure; and,
adhere, with the negative pressure and at a first
location, at least one sheet of material to the at least one
vacuum cup; and,
at least one sensor configured to:
monitor an area proximate the at least one vacuum
cup; and,
transmit at least one signal regarding a presence of
at least one sheet of material in the area, wherein:
the apparatus is arranged to displace to a second location
while continuously monitoring, using the at least one sensor, the
area proximate the at least one vacuum cup;
the at least one sensor is configured to transmit the at least
one signal when:
the at least one sheet of material is not detected in
the area; or,
the at least one sheet of material is detected in the
area; and,
the control circuit is arranged to:
determine, responsive to the at least one signal, the
at least one sheet of material is not present in the area; and,
generate an error signal indicating that the at least
one sheet of material is not present in the area;
the at least one vacuum cup includes a plurality of vacuum
cups.
Br. 37 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2018-005389
Application 14/709,785
REJECTION
Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14--22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l)
as anticipated by Hams (US 4,533,133, issued Aug. 6, 1985).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Hams discloses a system for picking and
stacking a product, comprising at least one apparatus connected to a robotic
arm, wherein the apparatus comprises at least one vacuum cup ( selector 16)
and at least one sensor (sensor 27) configured to monitor an area proximate
the at least one vacuum cup, where the apparatus is arranged to displace to a
second location while continuously monitoring, using the at least one sensor,
the area proximate the at least one vacuum cup. Final Act. 2-3 ( citing Hams
Fig. 1 ); see also id. at 4--5 ( citing Hams Fig. 1, col. 2, 1. 48---col. 3, 1. 16).
The Examiner finds that infrared source 29 remains fixed and transmits a
signal continuously; sensor 27 is housed in separator foot 25 and when
separator foot 25 is aligned with the signal generated by infrared source 29,
sensor 27 begins to send out a signal; and even when sensor 27 is not aligned
with infrared source 29, there is still monitoring although sensor 27 has not
been triggered to send out a signal. Ans. 3--4 (citing Hams col. 7, 1. 58, col.
8, 1. 7).
Appellant contends that Hams does not disclose an apparatus for
picking a product, which comprises at least one sensor configured to monitor
an area proximate to the at least one vacuum cup, and continuously monitors
the area throughout the displacement of the apparatus from a first location to
a second location. Br. 21; see also id. at 26-27. In contrast, Appellant
3
Appeal2018-005389
Application 14/709,785
argues, Hams' device is incapable of monitoring an area proximate to
selector 16 when the apparatus is moved between first and second locations
because the movements of selector 16 and gripper arm 18 are mutually
exclusive; before selector 16 and gripper arm 18 are positioned as shown in
Figure 1, the apparatus is incapable of monitoring an area proximate selector
16 because sensor 27 and infrared source 29 are not in alignment; and when
gripper arm 18 engages lowermost piece 15, separator foot 25 housing
sensor 27 would need to move out of the area such that sensor 27 is no
longer aligned with infrared source 29, or gripper arm 18 would be
positioned such that it blocks the transmission of a signal from infrared
source 29 to sensor 27. Id. at 21-24.
Appellant's contentions are persuasive. Hams discloses that separator
foot 25, which houses sensor 27, travels in between hopper 12 and selector
16 so that separator foot 25 assumes the position shown in Figure 1. Hams
col. 7, 11. 4 7--49. As the Examiner recognizes, only at this position is there
an alignment between sensor 27 and infrared source 29, for sensor 27 to
transmit a signal. See Ans. 3. To the extent the Examiner finds there is
continuous monitoring of an area proximate selector 16 because infrared
source 29 transmits a signal continuously (see id.), this finding is incorrect
because the signal sent by infrared source 29 is only used to trigger sensor
27 so that sensor 27 can send out its own signal, which, effectively, monitors
an area proximate selector 16. As Appellant explains, sensor 27 is incapable
of transmitting a signal when Hams' apparatus is at a location other than the
one depicted in Figure 1. The Examiner does not identify any disclosure in
Hams that sensor 2 7 transmits a signal when the apparatus is at a second
location different from the location shown in Figure 1. Accordingly, the
4
Appeal2018-005389
Application 14/709,785
Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Hams
discloses "[an] apparatus [that] is arranged to displace to a second location
while continuously monitoring, using the at least one sensor, the area
proximate the at least one vacuum cup" as recited in claim 1, and as
similarly recited in in claims 9 and 14.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 14, and of
claims 2---6, 8, 10-12, and 15-22 depending therefrom, as anticipated by
Hams.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1---6, 8-12, and 14--22.
REVERSED
5