Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2013

11051383 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2013)

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.
11/051,383 02/04/2005 George Zhang E20040030-2 2457
7590 03/29/2013
ABB Inc.
Legal Department - 4U6
29801 Euclid Avenue
Wickliffe, OH 44092-1832
EXAMINER
MANCHO, RONNIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GEORGE ZHANG, YUNQUAN SUN, JIANJUN WANG,
ZHONGXUE GAN, HUI ZHANG, and GREGORY F. ROSSANO
____________

Appeal 2011-002224
Application 11/051,383
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JOHN W. MORRISON, and
HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002224
Application 11/051,383

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over McGee (US 6,385,508 B1, iss. May 7, 2002) and
Bluman (US 2007/0060849 A1, publ. Mar. 15, 2007). Claims 2, 3, 6-8, 15,
16, and 18, are cancelled and claims 11-14, 17, and 19-26 are withdrawn.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of
the subject matter on appeal, and is reproduced below.
1. A teaching device for use in lead-through
teaching of an industrial robot having a tool
assembly mounted to an end effector, said teaching
device comprising:
a handle for gripping by a human operator,
said handle having a clamping assembly for
selectively attaching to said end effector;
an accelerometer mounted on said handle for
monitoring movement of said tool assembly during
lead-through teaching for safety monitoring
purposes; and
a controller connected to said robot to stop
movement of said robot when said controller
determines from a signal from said accelerometer
that one or more predetermined criteria related to
robot acceleration are detected during lead-through
teaching of said robot.

OPINION
The Examiner finds that McGee “discloses a teaching device for use
in lead-through teaching of an industrial robot . . . having a tool assembly 16
Appeal 2011-002224
Application 11/051,383

3
mounted to an end effector 26” including a handle 56, a force sensor 66, and
a controller 30 but that McGee does not disclose the use of an accelerometer.
Ans. 3-4. However, McGee “suggest[s] using other sensors to monitor
movement of said tool assembly.” Ans. 4 (citing McGee, col. 12, ll. 1-18).
The Examiner also finds that Bluman discloses a “device for use in teaching
of an industrial robot (section 0065) comprising an accelerometer (section
0053) for monitoring motion of a tool assembly of a robot to regulate
movement (0011, 0012) of the tool assembly.” Id. The Examiner concludes
that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify McGee as suggested by McGee and
taught by Bluman for the purpose of incorporating benefits of monitoring
accelerations of the robot tool assembly.” Id.
The Appellants contend that McGee does not “discuss or suggest
using different force sensing apparatus besides the force sensor and motor
torque. Thus, the Examiner's asserted motivation to combine is improper.”
Br. 4.
In response, the Examiner finds that McGee discloses “using the
McGee robot combined with other methods as known in the art of teaching
robot assembles” (Ans. 7; citing McGee, col. 12, ll. 1-18, 46-55); and, that
“Bluman discloses a method of teaching a robot using an accelerometer.”
Id. Indeed, McGee suggests alternatives for its teaching method by
describing, “[t]he methods introduced according to the subject invention can
be combined with other methods of teaching robot assemblies 10” (McGee,
col. 12, ll. 1-18); and, Bluman teaches, among other things, using an
accelerometer to monitor motion parameters to apply an effecting force for
motion improvement for an automatic machine. Bluman, paras. [0012],
Appeal 2011-002224
Application 11/051,383

4
[0053], [0065]. As such, the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is
adequately reasoned with rational underpinning. Thus, we are not persuaded
of Examiner error.
The Appellants also contend that “even if the references were properly
combinable, none of the references teach the limitation that the controller
‘stop movement of said robot when said controller determines from a signal
from said accelerometer that one or more predetermined criteria related to
robot acceleration are detected during lead-through teaching of said robot[,
as recited in claim 1].’” Br. 4. The Appellants assert that “[n]o teaching is
provided that the controller stops movement of the robot when a
predetermined criteria related to robot acceleration is detected.” Br. 3.
The Examiner finds that McGee teaches:
a controller 30 (col. 10, lines 62-67) connected to said
robot to stop movement of said robot when said controller 30
determines from a signal from said force sensor 66 that one or
more predetermined criteria related to robot acceleration are
detected during lead-through teaching of said robot (col. 5, lines
44-67).
Ans. 4. As for McGee at column 5, lines 44-50 we agree with the
Appellants that this passage describes features of the teach handle and not
McGee’s controller 30. Br. 3. However, the Examiner also cites to McGee
at column 10, lines 62-67, which recites:
a motion command is generated in response to the external
force that has been estimated. As appreciated, the controller 30
generates the motion command. The controller 30 generates the
motion command based on the[] external force estimated by
either the force sensor 66 or by the step of monitoring the motor
torque.

Appeal 2011-002224
Application 11/051,383

5
Ans. 6. The Examiner determines that “[p]er McGee, if no external force is
applied, a motion command is not generated by the controller. In operation,
when sensor 66 provides no or zero sensing signal, the controller would not
generate a motion command, hence stopping movement of the robot.” Ans.
6. Moreover, McGee, as modified, would use the accelerometer signal as
taught by Bluman to measure force. See Ans. 6-7. The Appellants do not
cogently explain why the Examiner’s findings and conclusion of
obviousness is in error.
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over
McGee and Bluman is sustained. The Appellants do not offer further
arguments against the rejection of dependent claims 4, 5, 9, and 10. Thus,
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 as unpatentable over
McGee and Bluman is also sustained.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10.
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

Klh