Texas Instruments IncorporatedDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 23, 20202020003518 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2020) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation