KUKA Deutschland GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 9, 2020

2019006042 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 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.
15/040,313 02/10/2016 Heinrich Munz WALR-37 1063
146902 7590 12/09/2020
Dorton & Willis LLP
10260 Alliance Road
Suite 210
Cincinnati, OH 45242
EXAMINER
KEBEDE, BROOK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2894
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2020 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 HEINRICH MUNZ and JOSEF LEIBINGER1
____________

Appeal 2019-006042
Application 15/040,313
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to systems and methods for
operating a multiple axis machine, such as a robot. E.g., Spec. ¶ 2; Claim 1.
Claim 1 is reproduced below from page 21 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal
Brief:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
KUKA Deutschland GmbH. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006042
Application 15/040,313

2
1. A method for operating a multiple axis machine, wherein
the machine includes a machine control system that controls
drives of the machine, and a fail-safe control system that includes
a first channel and a redundant, second channel which monitor
the machine, the method comprising:
in the first channel:
receiving first input target values and first input actual values
from the machine control system,
comparing first reference target values, which depend on the
first input target values, with first reference actual values,
which depend on the first input actual values, with each other,
and
triggering a fault reaction when a deviation between the first
reference target values and the first reference actual values
exceeds a specified tolerance; and
in the second channel:
receiving first input target values and first input actual values
from the machine control system,
comparing first reference target values, which depend on the
first input target values, with first reference actual values,
which depend on the first input actual values, and
triggering a fault reaction when a deviation between the first
reference target values and the first reference actual values
exceeds a specified tolerance;
wherein the first input target values and the first input actual
values comprise at least one of reference position values of a
machine-fixed reference of the machine, or time derivatives of
the reference position values; and
wherein the machine control system determines at least one of
these target reference position values or actual reference position
values based on a transformation between reference position
values of the machine-fixed reference and axial position values
of the machine.
Appeal 2019-006042
Application 15/040,313

3
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL2
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. 1–10 and 13–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by
Shimizu (US 2013/0030570 A1, published Jan. 31, 2013).
2. Claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Shimizu and Garon (US 2007/0140821 A1, published June 21, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “receiving first input target values and first
input actual values,” and claim 1 further recites, “wherein the first input
target values and the first input actual values comprise at least one of
reference position values of a machine-fixed reference of the machine, or
time derivatives of the reference position values.” Appeal Br. 21–22
(Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
Shimizu discloses a robot device that uses a camera system to detect
the “current posture” of objects and place those objects in an “optimum
posture.” E.g., Shimizu at Abstract. In the Final Action, the Examiner
appears to find that an object’s “current posture” corresponds to an “actual
value” as recited by claim 1, and that an object’s “optimum posture”
corresponds to a “target value” as recited by claim 1. See Final Act. 8–9.
With respect to the requirement that the values “comprise at least one of
reference position values of a machine-fixed reference of the machine, or
time derivatives of the reference position values,” the Examiner’s analysis
consists of quoting the claim language and citing 14 figures and 10 pages of

2 In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner withdraws a rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-006042
Application 15/040,313

4
Shimizu, which is essentially the entire Shimizu reference. See Final Act. 9
(citing “Figs. 1–14 and related text in Page 1, Paragraph [0008] – Page 11,
Paragraph [0205])”). The Examiner does not provide an interpretation of the
term “reference position values of a machine-fixed reference of the
machine,” and the Examiner does not provide a meaningful discussion of
how Shimizu’s disclosures teach or suggest that limitation. See id.
In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant argues that Shimizu does not
disclose “reference position values of a machine-fixed reference of the
machine” because Shimizu’s target objects “are completely independent
from the robot device [i.e., machine] of Shimizu ’570 and are, therefore, not
a machine-fixed reference of the robot device.” Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis in
original).
In the Answer, the Examiner quotes from paragraphs 80–84 of
Shimizu, which concern control of Shimizu’s joint actuators, and the
Examiner states that “first input target values or first input actual values
[are] the input value, i.e., target value is the image or an object seen by the
robot camera, and . . . the reference position value of a machine-fixed
reference of the machine is whatever present value coded in the control
system to control entire robot movement.” Ans. 13. The Examiner does not
appear to directly address the Appellant’s argument that objects that are
“completely independent” of the machine cannot be “machine-fixed”
references of the machine. See generally Ans.
In the Reply Brief, the Appellant argues: “[T]he alleged machine-
fixed reference of the machine in Shimizu ’570 should correspond with
objects that are fixed relative to the robot of Shimizu ’570. Because the
objects . . . and even the robot itself may freely move within the room
Appeal 2019-006042
Application 15/040,313

5
discussed in Shimizu ’570, these objects are clearly not fixed relative to the
robot.” Reply 5.
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner’s analysis
lacks adequate clarity to carry the Examiner’s burden as to claim 1. In
particular, claim 1 requires “the first input target values and the first input
actual values comprise at least one of reference position values of a
machine-fixed reference of the machine, or time derivatives of the reference
position values.” Consistent with the Appellant’s argument, the Examiner
has not adequately explained how the position of objects seen by Shimizu’s
camera, which the Examiner identifies as corresponding to the recited target
and actual values, Ans. 13, constitute “a machine-fixed reference of the
machine,” given that both the objects and the machine may freely move
relative to each other. The Specification identifies “a TCP (tool center
point)” as an example of a “machine-fixed reference.” Spec. ¶ 3. We
understand a TCP to be part of the machine itself. The Examiner has not
adequately explained how values concerning the position of objects that can
move relative to the machine may fall within the scope of the term
“reference position values of a machine-fixed reference of the machine, or
time derivatives of the reference position values.” Accordingly, we reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
All other claims on appeal include the same limitation, either directly
or through claim dependency, and the Examiner’s analysis of those claims
does not remedy the deficiency identified above. Accordingly, we also
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–18.
Appeal 2019-006042
Application 15/040,313

6
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 13–18 102(a)(1) Shimizu 1–10, 13–18
11, 12 103 Shimizu, Garon 11, 12
Overall
Outcome 1–18
REVERSED