Ex Parte Eriksson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 7, 2010

10297250 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 7, 2010)

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.
10/297,250 03/28/2003 Goran Eriksson 43315-203013 9097
26694 7590 11/08/2010
VENABLE LLP
P.O. BOX 34385
WASHINGTON, DC 20043-9998
EXAMINER
KOEHLER, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GORAN ERIKSSON and TED OSTERGAARD
____________

Appeal 2009-008538
Application 10/297,250
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008538
Application 10/297,250
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Goran Eriksson et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14, 15, 17-25, and 27-29,
which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a method for assembling a
vehicle body or at least a part thereof. Spec. 1:5-6. Claim 14, reproduced
below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
14. A method of assembling at least a portion of a vehicle body
in an assembly plant with at least one industrial robot, the
method comprising:
placing a first body component in a first retainer device
and positioning and fixing the first body component with
respect to the first retainer device;
coupling the first retainer device to a first industrial
robot;
moving the first retainer device with the first industrial
robot to a stationary positioning and fixing device;
positioning and fixing the first retainer device with the
first industrial robot in relation to the positioning and fixing
device;
coupling the first retainer device to the stationary
positioning and fixing device;
placing a further body component in a second retainer
device and positioning and fixing the further body component
with respect to the second retainer device;
coupling the second retainer device to the first industrial
robot;
moving the second retainer device with the first industrial
robot to the positioning and fixing device;
Appeal 2009-008538
Application 10/297,250
3
positioning and fixing the second retainer device with the
first industrial robot in relation to the positioning and fixing
device;
coupling the second retainer device to the stationary
positioning and fixing device;
connecting a joining device to the first industrial robot or
a second industrial robot; and
manipulating the joining device with the first industrial
robot or the second industrial robot to join together the first
body component and the further body component.
THE REJECTION
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 15,
17-25, and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sakamoto
(U.S. Patent 4,894,909, issued Jan. 23, 1990).
ISSUE
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Sakamoto’s front
assembly X1 and rear assembly X2 correspond to the claimed first body
component and the further body component.
ANALYSIS
Claims 14-15 and 17-24
The Examiner’s determination of anticipation of independent claim 14
is based in part on the finding that Sakamoto’s front assembly X1 and rear
assembly X2 correspond to the claimed first and second body components.
Ans. 3. This finding is based on the Examiner’s claim construction that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “body component”2 as used
in independent claim 14 means “any part which comprises the body of the

2 The Examiner uses the phrase “body part”; however, this phrase is not
contained in claim 14, and the Examiner presumably meant “body
component.”
Appeal 2009-008538
Application 10/297,250
4
vehicle,” such as: the vehicle frame, panel members, the engine, and the
drive train. Ans. 8.
Appellants argue that Sakamoto discloses a complete body B, not
forming a body from a plurality of body components as called for in claim
14. Br. 10-11.
Independent claim 14 is directed to a method of assembling at least a
portion of a vehicle body that includes the sub-steps of placing a first body
component in a first retainer device, placing a further body component in a
second retainer device, and joining the first body component to the further
body component. Appellants’ Specification describes that the body
components are for the formation of the vehicle body, and provides an
example of two such body components: a cab floor and a truck cab. Spec.
1:5-7; 4:4-8; see also Br. 3. Claim 14 does not refer to a vehicle comprised
of vehicle components, but rather, claim 14 more narrowly refers to a
vehicle body (or at least a portion of a vehicle body) comprised of body
components. Consequently, we cannot agree with the Examiner’s claim
construction that “body component” means any body part to include
components such as the engine and drive train. See Ans. 8. Such an
interpretation rewrites claim 14 to call for any component rather than a body
component. For example, the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonably
broad in that it covers components, such as the vehicle frame, engine and
drive train, which are chassis components or other vehicle components
within the chassis and are not body components. We must interpret claim
14, giving meaning to each term, to include the term “body.”
We conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the “body components” of independent claim 14 do not refer
to all vehicle components, but rather call for components of the vehicle’s
Appeal 2009-008538
Application 10/297,250
5
body, which do not include non-body components such as chassis
components or other vehicle components that are disposed within the
chassis.
Sakamoto discloses an apparatus for assembling a vehicle body B to
front assembly X1 (the engine and front wheel attaching unit) and rear
assembly X2 (a rear wheel attaching unit, an oil tank, exhaust pipe, silencer,
electric cables and so on). Sakamoto, col. 3, ll. 28-32, 39-40; fig. 1.
Sakamoto’s front assembly X1 and rear assembly X2 are components
disposed within the chassis and are not body components. Given this, the
Examiner’s finding that Sakamoto’s front assembly X1 and rear assembly
X2 correspond to the first and second body components of independent
claim 14 (Ans. 3) is in error, and consequently the determination of
anticipation is also in error. Claims 15 and 17-24 depend, directly or
indirectly, from claim 14, and hence these claims are also not anticipated by
Sakamoto as their rejection relies upon the same erroneous finding of fact.
Claim 25
Independent claim 25 is directed to an assembly plant for assembling
at least a portion of a vehicle body from a plurality of body components, the
plant including at least one industrial robot operative to join body parts
together. Similar to our interpretation of independent claim 14, we conclude
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand independent claim
25, read in light of Appellants’ Specification, to call for the at least one
industrial robot to be operative to join components of the vehicle body.
The Examiner found that Sakamoto discloses at least one industrial
robot (conveyor portion D, pallet P, and robot 6) operative to join body parts
(front assembly X1 and rear assembly X2) together. Ans. 5-6. This finding
of fact is in error in that front assembly X1 and rear assembly X2 are not
Appeal 2009-008538
Application 10/297,250
6
components of the vehicle body. Further, the Examiner did not make a
finding that Sakamoto discloses at least one industrial robot capable of
joining body components. Ans. 5-7, passim. Accordingly, the Examiner has
not established that claim 25 is anticipated by Sakamoto.
Claim 27
Independent claim 27 is directed to a computer program product for
performing a process assembling at least a portion of a vehicle body that
includes computer program instructions for performing the sub-steps of
placing a first body component in a first retainer device, placing a further
body component in a second retainer device, and manipulating a joining
device to join together the first and further body components. Also similar
to our interpretation of independent claim 14, we conclude that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand independent claim 27, read in light
of Appellants’ Specification, to call for the computer program instructions to
be capable of, when executed, causing an industrial robot to assemble at
least a portion of a vehicle body that includes the sub-steps of placing a first
body component in a first retainer, placing a further body component in a
second retainer, and manipulating a joining device to join the body
components.
The Examiner found that Sakamoto discloses a program module and a
plurality of processors operative to control movements of an industrial robot
including placing a first body component (front assembly X1) in a first
retainer, placing a further body component (rear assembly X2) in a second
retainer, and manipulating a joining device to join together the body
components. Ans. 7-8. These finding of fact are in error in that front
assembly X1 and rear assembly X2 are components disposed within the
chassis and are not body components. Further, the Examiner did not make a
Appeal 2009-008538
Application 10/297,250
7
finding that Sakamoto discloses computer program instructions capable of,
when executed, causing an industrial robot to assemble at least a portion of a
vehicle body that includes the sub-steps of placing a first body component in
a first retainer device, placing a further body component in a second retainer
device, and manipulating a joining device to join the body components.
Ans. 7-8, passim. Accordingly, the Examiner has not established that claim
27 is anticipated by Sakamoto.
CONCLUSION
Sakamoto’s front assembly X1 and rear assembly X2 do not
correspond to the claimed first body component and the further body
component.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14, 15, 17-25,
and 27-29.

REVERSED

nlk

VENABLE LLP
P.O. BOX 34385
WASHINGTON DC 20043-9998