Ex Parte Kurth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 1, 2016

12528549 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/528,549 11/05/2010
26574 7590 06/03/2016
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
PA TENT DEPARTMENT
233 S. Wacker Drive-Suite 6600
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Johannes Kurth
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P09,0241 (40026-0001) 4669
EXAMINER
MESSMORE, JONATHAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/03/2016 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):
patents-CH@schiffhardin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHANNES KURTH and ANDREAS SEDLMAYR1
Appeal2014-008233
Application 12/528,549
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 12-37. Claims 1-11 have been canceled. Final Act. 2. We have
jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify KUKA Laboratories GmbH as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-008233
Application 12/528,549
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention is directed to determining the location of an
industrial robot relative to an object. Spec. 1, Abstract. In a disclosed
embodiment, an industrial robot is equipped with a 2D camera. Spec. 1-3.
The camera, which may be movable relative to the robot, captures at least
two different images of the object. Id. The images may be overlaid on a
graphical model of the object. Spec. 3. The location of the object relative to
the industrial robot, therefore, may be determined by associating various
image points with model points. Spec. 4--5.
Claim 12 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
12. A method to determine a location of an industrial robot relative
to an object, comprising:
operating an industrial robot, in a robot coordinate system
associated with the industrial robot; to move a 2D camera; that has a
camera field of view and that is attached to the robot at an attachment
position, into at least two different positions in each of which an
object, that is immobile relative to an environment of the industrial
robot, is within the camera field of view;
in each of said at least two different positions, generating, with
the 2D camera, a 2D image data set representing an image of the
object as seen from the respective different positions, and supplying
the respective image data sets to a computerized control unit;
at a display device in communication with said control unit,
displaying the respective images, as displayed images each comprised
of image points, and superimposing a graphical model on the
displayed images that is at least a partial model of the object in a
coordinate system having a known relationship to said robot
coordinate system, said graphical model being comprised of model
points;
2
Appeal2014-008233
Application 12/528,549
by manual interaction with said displayed images via said
display device, manually associating respective model attributes, each
comprised of at least one of said model points, of said graphical
model with corresponding respective image attributes, each comprised
of at least one of said image points, of said displayed images; and
in said control unit, automatically executing a location
determination algorithm that determines a location of the industrial
robot relative to the object from the respective model attributes
manually associated with the corresponding respective image
attributes, and the respective positions of the 2D camera when the
respective 2D image data sets were generated, and the attachment
position of the camera, and making a result of said location
determination algorithm available at an output of said control unit in
electronic form.
The Examiner's Rejections2
1. Claims 12, 13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sadighi et al. (US 2003/0202092 Al;
Oct. 30, 2003) ("Sadighi") and Pietrzak et al. (US 6,205,240B1;
Mar. 20, 2001) ("Pietrzak"). Final Act. 2---6.
2. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sadighi, Pietrzak, and Altman (US 4,233,625;
Nov. 11, 1980). Final Act. 6-8.
2 We note in the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 21 and 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite. Final Act. 2. On
January 23, 2014, Appellants amended the claim as suggested by the
Examiner. In an Advisory Action, mailed February 6, 2014, the Examiner
indicated the "amendments clear up typographical errors pointed out in an
Office Action." Adv. Act. 2. Accordingly, we treat the rejection of claims
21 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as having been resolved and no longer
before us.
3
Appeal2014-008233
Application 12/528,549
3. Claims 17-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sadighi, Pietrzak, Altman, and Witriol et al.
(US 4,853,771; Aug. 1, 1989) ("Witriol"). Final Act. 8-10.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Sadighi and
Pietrzak teaches or reasonably suggests the disputed limitations of claim 12?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Altman teaches or suggests
"locking" a model attribute and a coinciding image attribute, as recited in
claim 14?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding Witriol teaches or suggests
moving an object relative to a 2D camera's field of view, wherein the 2D
camera is immobile relative to an industrial robot's environment, as recited
in claim 1 7?
ANALYSIS3
Claims 12, 13, 15, and 16
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Sadighi teaches
moving a 2D camera in two different positions and generating a 2D image
set. App. Br. 12-13. Instead, Appellants argue the image acquired in
Sadighi "is a result of a step-by-step comparison of a single image with [an]
3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
January 27, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief filed July 15, 2014 ("Reply
Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed on May 15, 2014 ("Ans."); and the
Final Office Action mailed on July 26, 2013 ("Final Act.") from which this
Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal2014-008233
Application 12/528,549
indicia." Id. Appellants assert "[t]his is therefore not an overlay of quasi-
3D image." App. Br. 13.
As an initial matter, the Examiner notes, as do we, claim 12 does not
recite "an overlay of quasi-3D image." Ans. 11. Accordingly, Appellants'
argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 12 and, thus, does not
demonstrate error in the Examiner's rejection. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCP A 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied
upon for patentability).
Further, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Sadighi teaches moving a
camera assembly along a predetermined route and transmitting the images to
a controller. Ans. 10-11 (citing Sadighi i-f 65). For example, Sadighi
teaches the elevation of a camera may be adjusted and that the images are
transmitted to a controller to be displayed or compared against reference
images. Sadighi i-fi-1 64, 65; see also Ans. 10-11. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Sadighi teaches or suggests "in each of said at least two
different positions, generating, with the 2D camera, a 2D image data set
representing an image of the object as seen from the respective different
positions, and supplying the respective image data sets to a computerized
control unit," as recited in claim 12. See Final Act. 3.
Additionally, Appellants argue the grid projected onto the display in
Sadighi is used to resolve a distance, using the indicia as a reference point.
App. Br. 13. Appellants contend this does not correspond to the claimed
graphical model. App. Br. 13.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Pietrzak teaches superimposing a
graphical model on the displayed images that is at least a partial model of
the object. Final Act. 4 (citing Pietrzak, col. 7, 11. 61-63, Fig. 4; see also
5
Appeal2014-008233
Application 12/528,549
Pietrzak, col. 9, 11. 43, 58-59). Thus, Appellants' arguments are
unpersuasive of Examiner error because, at least, they are not responsive to
the Examiner's rejection. Further, the Examiner also explains Sadighi
teaches "a rudimentary graphical representation of the object." Ans. 11
(citing Sadighi i-f 64). Appellants do not provide sufficient persuasive
evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner's findings. See Reply Br. 4---6.
Further, Appellants assert:
in the embodiment that is described in paragraph [0065] the
Sadighi et al. system operates as described by the Examiner, but
this embodiment has nothing in common, and is not performed
together with, the other embodiment disclosed in Sadighi et al.
that is relied upon by the Examiner as disclosing the feature in
the independent claims of superimposing a graphical model on
the displayed 2D images, wherein the graphical model is at least
a partial model of the object relative to which the industrial robot
is being moved.
Reply Br. 2--4.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because a patent claim is
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed
subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole,
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR
Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
Further, non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the
combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the
patentee's invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck
6
Appeal2014-008233
Application 12/528,549
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed supra, the
Examiner finds, and we agree, the combined teachings of Sadighi and
Pietrzak teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 12.
Appellants further contend the combination of Sadighi and Pietrzak
does not include the steps of:
(1) moving a 2D camera into at least two different positions, (2)
in each of these at least two different positions, generating, with
the 2D camera, a 2D image data set, (3) superimposing a
graphical model on the displayed images that is at least a partial
model of the object, and ( 4) by manual interaction with the
displayed images at a display device, manually associating
model attributes, each composed of at least one of the model
points of the graphical model, with corresponding image
attributes, each compromised of at least one of the image points
of the displayed images.
App. Br. 13. Appellants further argue, based on the teachings of Sadighi and
Pietrzak, claims 12, 13, 15, and 16 would not have been obvious "to a
person of ordinary skill in the field of designing and operating industrial
robot systems, under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)." App. Br. 17; see
also Reply Br. 6.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
requires more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011 ). Further, it is well settled that mere attorney arguments and
conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974)
7
Appeal2014-008233
Application 12/528,549
(attorney argument is not evidence). Therefore, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments unsupported by persuasive evidence.
Furthermore, to the extent Appellants contend the combination of
Pietrzak and Sadighi is improper, we find the Examiner has articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning for combining the teachings of
Sadighi and Pietrzak. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In particular, the Examiner
finds it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
incorporate Pietrzak's visual calibration with Sadighi's robot calibration "in
order to quickly and accurately evaluate an object's position relative to a
camera system via a more robust graphical model than the relative size of
the image and number of pixels as taught by Sadighi." Ans. 11. We agree
with the Examiner's findings and legal conclusion of obviousness.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 12. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent
claims 13, 15, and 16, which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 11-
17.
Claims 14, 19, 22, 27, 32, and 35
Claim 14 recites, inter alia, "locking the coinciding first model
attribute and said first image attribute to maintain the coincidence thereof at
said display device." Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding
Altman teaches the limitation of "locking" because Altman "merely
describes a particular way of re-orienting an image for viewing on display."
App. Br. 18 (citing Altman, col. 4). Appellants further argue Altman's
display re-orientation does not relate to "either the indicia 214, or the pixel
8
Appeal2014-008233
Application 12/528,549
number, in the Sadighi et al. reference that the Examiner has relied upon as
corresponding to the 'graphical model' in the independent claims." Reply
Br. 7. Appellants contend there is nothing in the art of record "that would
teach a person of ordinary skill in the art that the display manipulation
described in the Altman reference could or should pertain to the indicia 214,
or the pixel number." Id.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds Altman
"disclose[s] moving the object in the XY plane to a position (first image
attribute), then, without moving the object in the XY plane (locking said first
image attribute) rotating the graphical overlay (second image attribute) to
maintain coincidence thereof, which is read as ensuring the object and
camera remain in a known positional relationship." Ans. 12 (citing Altman,
col. 4). Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings.
Additionally, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error because
Appellants' contentions are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by
the Examiner. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds the combination of
Sadighi and Pietrzak teaches superimposing a partial model of an object over
displayed captured images of the object. The Examiner relies upon Pietrzak
to teach, inter alia, displacing a graphical model overlaid on a displayed
images to cause an edge profile (the claimed "first model attribute") and a
nominal profile (the claimed "first image attribute") to coincide. Final
Act. 6; see also Pietrzak col. 9, 11. 49-60; col. 10, 11. 3-5. The Examiner
relies upon Altman to teach, inter alia, rotating a graphical overlay without
moving an object in an XY plane, "to maintain coincidence thereof, which is
read as ensuring the object and camera remain in a known positional
relationship." Ans. 12; see also Altman col. 4, 11. 1-7. Accordingly, the
9
Appeal2014-008233
Application 12/528,549
Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of Sadighi, Pietrzak, and
Altman teaches rotating the edge profile without moving the nominal profile
in an XY plane, wherein the edge profile and the nominal profile overlay
and coincide.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 and, for
similar reasons, the rejection of claims 19, 22, 27, 32, and 35, which recite
similar limitations and were not argued separately. App. Br. 19.
Claims 17, 18, 20, 21, 23-26, 28-31, 33, 34, 36, and 37
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Witriol teaches or
suggests "[a] 2D camera that is immobile relative to an environment of an
industrial robot." App. Br. 19-20. Although Appellants concede Witriol
"discloses an imaging system that makes use of an immobile camera,"
Appellants contend this is merely a "general teaching" and "does not guide
or motivate" an ordinarily-skilled artisan "to make use of such an immobile
camera together with the other features described in the Sadighi [] and
Pietrzak [] references." App. Br. 20.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because an obviousness
analysis "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
Further, we again find the Examiner has articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning for combining the teachings of Witriol with the
10
Appeal2014-008233
Application 12/528,549
combination of Sadighi and Pietrzak. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In
particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree, it would have been obvious to
a person of ordinary skill in the art to reverse the relationship algorithms, as
taught by the combination of Sadighi and Pietrzak, with Witriol' s imaging
system "to support immovable cameras and a movable object ... [and]
improve picture quality." Ans. 12.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 17 and, for similar reasons, the rejection of independent claims 21, 25,
30, and 34, which recite similar limitations and which were not argued
separately. App. Br. 19. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejections
of dependent claims 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33, 36, and 37, which
were not argued separately. See App. Br. 19-20.
11
Appeal2014-008233
Application 12/528,549
DECISION4
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 12-37.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4 In the event of further prosecution, we note claims 28 and 29 depend from
"[a]n industrial robot system as claimed in Claim 21," but the statutory
category of claim 21 is directed to "[a] method." Further, we note claims 32
and 35 depend from "[a] method as claimed in" claims 30 and 34,
respectively, but the statutory category of claims 30 and 34 is directed to
"[a]n industrial robot system." The Examiner is invited to determine
whether these claims comport with the requirements 35 U.S.C. § 112.
12