Texas Instruments Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2020

2020003518 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 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.
14/973,350 12/17/2015 ADOLPHUS EDWARD McCLANAHAN TI-75468 9014
23494 7590 12/23/2020
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
MACKEY, PATRICK HEWEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2020 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADOLPHUS EDWARD McCLANAHAN,
ANTHONY WAYNE MYERS, RONALD TRACY WHITE, and
JOHN KEITH BENTLEY
Appeal 2020-003518
Application 14/973,350
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8 and 10–13. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 Texas Instruments
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003518
Application 14/973,350

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to robotic arm bump detection. Claim 8,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
8. A method comprising:
detecting contact shock transients generated by a robot
arm;
generating a signal proportional to contact shock
transients;
measuring an amount of the signal;
determining whether the amount of the signal exceeds two
or more predetermined contact shock transient thresholds; and
executing one or more predetermined operations based on
the determination.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lembke US 4,821,584 Apr. 18, 1989
Hillman US 2014/0277868 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
REJECTION
Claims 8 and 10–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lembke and Hillman.
OPINION
Claim 8
Appellant’s contentions related to claim 8 fail to apprise us of error
because they do not address the Examiner’s rejection, effectively leaving the
rejection unrebutted.
Appeal 2020-003518
Application 14/973,350

3
Appellant contends that “Lembke does not teach determining whether
the amount of the signal exceeds two or more predetermined contact shock
transient thresholds.” Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added). Appellant similarly
contends that “Hillman . . . does not teach determining whether the amount
of the signal exceeds two or more predetermined contact shock transient
thresholds.” Id. (emphasis added).
The problem with these contentions, as the Examiner correctly
explains, is that “Lembke is not relied on to disclose two or more
predetermined thresholds, and Hillman, Jr. is not relied on to disclose [a]
contact shock transient.” Ans. 4. Rather, the Examiner finds that “Lembke
discloses detecting a plurality of contact shock transients generated by a
robot arm and comparing them to a single contact shock transient threshold”
and “Hillman discloses detecting transients generated by a robot and
comparing them to two or more thresholds for the purpose of preventing
damage to the robot.” Id. The Examiner explains that “[t]he combination of
the two references discloses detecting a plurality of contact shock transients
and comparing them to two or more contact shock transient thresholds for
the purpose of preventing damage to a robot.” Id. (emphasis added).
“Appellant [also] respectfully traverses the statement on page 3 of the
Office Action that ‘Hillman discloses similar method which includes
determining whether a signal from a sensor (11) exceed two predetermined
thresholds (see at least para. 0032).’” Appeal Br. 8–9. That, too, is
unpersuasive. Although “Appellant submits that the cited paragraph 0032 of
Hillman . . . instead teaches an audio alert that is generated when the
collision determination exceeds a single threshold, where that single
threshold depends on the distance between the machine and the object,”
Appeal 2020-003518
Application 14/973,350

4
Appellant fails to address the express discussion in Hillman’s paragraph 32
regarding use of multiple thresholds. Id. at 9; Hillman ¶ 32 (discussing “a
first threshold,” “a second (smaller) threshold,” and “a third (even smaller
than the second) threshold.”).
For the reasons set forth above, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s decision to reject claim 8.
Claims 10–13
Claims 10–13 depend from claim 8. Appellant’s contentions with
respect to claims 10–13 are unpersuasive because they, too, fail to address
the basis for the Examiner’s rejection of each of those claims.
With respect to claim 10, Appellant notes that “Claim 10 further
specifies that the end effector is configured to carry a semiconductor wafer,”
and alleges that “the Office Action does not contain any listing of locations
within Lembke or Hillman . . . that teach this feature.” Appeal Br. 9. The
Examiner expressly finds, however, that “[t]he end effector disclosed by
Lembke is identical to the end effector as it is recited in the claims.” Ans. 7;
see also Final Act. 2 (identifying Lemke’s “end effector E”). Appellant does
not dispute this finding.
For claim 11, Appellant, again, alleges fault in the rejection for the
unpersuasive reasons discussed above in connection with claim 8. See
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding regarding
the additional feature recited in claim 11. See id. at 10–11 (alleging that the
references, individually, do not teach each limitation).
Appellant alleges that “the Office Action does not contain any listing
of locations within Lembke or Hillman . . . that teach [the piezoelectric
sensor is mounted on a diaphragm],” as recited in claim 12. Appeal Br. 11.
Appeal 2020-003518
Application 14/973,350

5
The Examiner expressly finds that “the second sentence of the abstract of
Lembke states, ‘[t]he piezoelectric film sensing element and a resilient
support pad are clamped in compression between upper and lower plates.’”
Ans. 7–8. The Examiner finds that Lembke’s support pad corresponds to the
recited “diaphragm.” Again, Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s
rejection.
Appellant notes the additional feature recited in claim 13 and then
alleges that “Claim 13 is allowable on its own merits,” without actually
addressing the rejection of claim 13. See id. at 12–13 (alleging that the
references, individually, do not teach each limitation).
For the reasons set forth above, we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10–13.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8, 10–13 103 Lembke, Hillman 8, 10–13

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
Appeal 2020-003518
Application 14/973,350

6
AFFIRMED