iRobot Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2021

2020000283 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 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.
14/807,485 07/23/2015 Andrew Beaulieu 09945-0255001 5316
108858 7590 04/02/2021
Fish & Richardson PC (iROBOT)
P.O. Box 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
CHEN, ZHITONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2021 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):
patdoctc@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANDREW BEAULIEU,
BRIAN YAMAUCHI, and ERIK STELTZ
____________________

Appeal 2020-000283
Application 14/807,485
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9, 10, 24, and 26–37. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2

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 iRobot
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Our Decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Feb. 11, 2019), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct. 14, 2019), and
Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 23, 2015), as well as the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 16, 2019) and the Final Office Action (“Final
Act.,” mailed May 3, 2018).
Appeal 2020-000283
Application 14/807,485

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to pairing a beacon with a
mobile lawn mowing robot so that the robot can receive signals to navigate
over an area. Abstr. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative
of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A method performed by a mobile lawn mowing robot,
the method comprising:
pairing a beacon with the mobile lawn mowing robot,
wherein pairing the beacon with the mobile lawn mowing robot
comprises:
determining a distance between the beacon and the
mobile lawn mowing robot;
comparing the determined distance to a pairing
distance, and outputting a request to position the beacon
closer to the mobile lawn mowing robot when the
determined distance is greater than the pairing distance;
and
determining that the beacon is within the pairing
distance from the mobile lawn mowing robot;
subsequent to pairing, detecting wideband or
ultra-wideband signals from the beacon, and using the wideband
or ultra-wideband signals to enable navigation over an area;
identifying an error associated with the beacon; and
outputting an indication of the error via a user interface,
wherein outputting the indication of the error via the user
interface comprises causing the user interface to present a map
indicating a location of the beacon.

REJECTIONS3
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 10, 24, 26–30, and 32–37
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sandin (US 2009/0254218

3 The Examiner also objected to claim 9 because it depends from claim 8,
which was canceled. See Final Act. 4.

Appeal 2020-000283
Application 14/807,485

3

A1; published Oct. 8, 2009), Decosmo (WO 2009/124108 A1; published
Oct. 8, 2009), Ozkan (US 2015/0289111 A1; published Oct. 8, 2015), and
Tillson (US 2012/0258741 A1; published Oct. 11, 2012). Final Act. 4–14.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 3–5, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sandin, Decosmo,
Ozkan, Tillson, Jeong (US 2016/0065719 A1; published Mar. 3, 2016), and
Burnett (US 2013/0261867 A1; published Oct. 3, 2013). Final Act. 14–18.
(3) The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sandin, Decosmo, Ozkan, Tillson,
Jeong, Burnett, and Dooley (US 6,868,256 B2; issued Mar. 15, 2005). Final
Act. 18–19.
(4) The Examiner rejected claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sandin, Decosmo, Ozkan, Tillson, and
Halloran (US 2013/0253701 A1; published Sept. 26, 2013). Final Act. 19–
20.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections4 in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner errs. In our analysis below, we focus on
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner does not show that the
combination of Sandin, Decosmo, Ozkan, and Tillson teaches or suggests “a

4 We note that Appellant identifies only the first rejection as a grounds of
rejection to be reviewed on appeal, but also identifies all of the pending
claims (which implicates all four rejections) as being under appeal. See
Appeal Br. 1–2. Accordingly, we treat this Appeal as being directed to all
four grounds of rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) (“An appeal, when
taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under
rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the applicant and
entered by the Office.”).
Appeal 2020-000283
Application 14/807,485

4

pairing distance” for “comparing [with] the determined distance,” as recited
in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 8–10; Reply Br. 3–4. We are persuaded
by these arguments, and find that this issue is dispositive for this Appeal.5
First, we agree with Appellant that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “a pairing distance” relates to “a distance for pairing a
beacon with a robot.” Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. Notably, claim 1 recites
“pairing distance” in the context of three substeps that comprise the step of
“pairing a beacon with the mobile lawn mowing robot.” Appeal Br. 11
(reciting claim 1). In other words, claim 1 uses “pairing distance” in pairing
a beacon and robot. Id. We also agree with Appellant that “pairing
distance” is distinct from the determined distance. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br.
4. The claim language clearly provides for comparing the determined
distance and pairing distance (i.e., comparing two different distances).
Appeal Br. 11 (reciting claim 1). Moreover, we agree with Appellant that
this interpretation is supported by the Specification which describes
determining a distance between the robot and beacon, and then determining
whether this determined distance is less than or greater than a pairing
distance. See Appeal Br. 6–7 (citing Spec. 29:3–19); see also Spec. 15:3–5
(disclosing that a “new beacon 114 can be configured such that the new
beacon 114 can only be paired with robots that are within a pairing distance
118 from the position of the new beacon 114”); In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
603 F.3d 1255, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding that although “the PTO
must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the

5 As this issue is dispositive for this Appeal, we do not reach the merits of
Appellant’s other arguments.
Appeal 2020-000283
Application 14/807,485

5

specification[,] . . . claims should always be read in light of the specification
and teachings in the underlying patent”) (citation omitted).
The Examiner does not address directly Appellant’s arguments
concerning the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a pairing distance.”
See generally Ans. Rather, the Examiner cites to portions of Sandin,
Decosmo, Ozkan, and Tillson, and finds that they teach all three of claim 1’s
pairing substeps. See Ans. 4–5. From our review of the Examiner’s
findings, we understand that the Examiner relies on cited portions of Sandin
and Decosmo for teaching the claimed “pairing distance” and comparing it
with the determined distance. See id.; Final Act. 5. We agree, however,
with Appellant that the Examiner errs in finding that the cited portions of
Sandin and Decosmo teach a pairing distance that is compared with a
determined distance. Appeal Br. 8–10; Reply Br. 3–4.
As to Sandin, the Examiner finds that Sandin teaches that “a robot 10
may activate a power station 5912 within its limited range,” and that the
power station 5912 can “hand-shake” with the robot. Ans. 4 (citing Sandin
¶ 257). We agree with Appellant that this teaching from Sandin does not
describe “a pairing distance,” nor comparing it to a “determined distance.”
Reply Br. 3–4 (citing Sandin ¶ 257). Rather, to the extent that this
paragraph teaches pairing, such pairing is based on the signal strength
(range) of the robot’s emitter, and not, a pairing distance that is distinct
from, and compared to, a determined distance. Sandin ¶ 257. The Examiner
also finds that Sandin teaches that “a controller 452 on the robot 10 may
deactivate the robot 10 when it is sufficiently far (e.g., 100 feet) from its
anchor point 5930,” and “may . . . activate an anti-theft claxon, radio beacon,
lockout, or other countermeasure . . . when the robot 10 is very far (e.g.,
Appeal 2020-000283
Application 14/807,485

6

greater than 200 yards) from its anchor point 5930.” Ans. 4 (quoting Sandin
¶ 258). We agree with Appellant that these teachings do not relate to pairing
or a pairing distance, but rather relate to actions to take when an already
paired robot has gone too far away from its anchor beacon. Sandin ¶ 258;
Reply Br. 3–4.
In Decosmo, the Examiner finds that “a cell device determines
whether tracked devices are within [a] predetermined proximity threshold.”
Final Act. 5 (citing Decosmo, Figs. 1–2, ¶¶ 23–29). We agree with
Appellant that this teaching from Decosmo does not describe “pairing,” “a
pairing distance,” nor comparing to a “determined distance.” Appeal Br. 8–
9. In particular, we agree with Appellant that “Decosmo’s cellular telephone
14 does not use the predetermined proximity threshold as a pairing distance
but, rather, generates an alarm if the wireless device is not within a
predetermined proximity threshold.” Appeal Br. 8–9 (citing Decosmo ¶¶ 8,
15). Put differently, Decosmo simply teaches generating an alarm when a
paired device is moved too far away from a cellular telephone. Decosmo,
Figs. 1–2, ¶¶ 8, 15, 23–29. This teaching does not relate to pairing the
telephone and tracked device, and especially does not relate to pairing the
devices based on a pairing distance. Id.
In summary, we find that the Examiner errs in finding that the
combination of Sandin, Decosmo, Ozkan, and Tillson teaches “a pairing
distance” for “comparing [with] the determined distance.”

Appeal 2020-000283
Application 14/807,485

7

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1, as well as claims 2, 10, 24, 26–30, and 32–
37 which depend therefrom. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of the additional dependent claims because the Examiner relies on
the above discussed findings, and the additional cited references do not cure
the identified deficiencies. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 3–7, 9, and 31.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 10, 24,
26–30, 32–
37
103 Sandin, Decosmo,
Ozkan, Tillson
1, 2, 10,
24, 26–30,
32–37
3–5, 7, 9 103 Sandin, Decosmo,
Ozkan, Tillson,
Jeong, Burnett
3–5, 7, 9
6 103 Sandin, Decosmo,
Ozkan, Tillson,
Jeong, Burnett,
Dooley
6
31 103 Sandin, Decosmo,
Ozkan, Tillson,
Halloran
31
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9, 10,
24, 26–37

REVERSED