Ex Parte Ostwald

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

14578675 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/578,675
81505
ORACLE
7590
FILING DATE
12/22/2014
03/28/2018
(Oracle formerly d/b/a Sun Microsystems)
8055 East Tufts A venue
Suite 450
Denver, CO 80237
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Timothy Craig Ostwald
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.
ORA150062-US-NP-2 4709
EXAMINER
GARCIA, CARLOS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
ptomail@mfblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY CRAIG OSTWALD
Appeal 2017-011181
Application 14/578,675 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 11-13, 15, 22, and 23. Claims 1-10, 14, 16, 17, and 21 are indicated
to be allowable. Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 6-7. We have jurisdiction over
the rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Technology
The application relates to "reduc[ing] robotic assembly contention in
media element storage libraries by rotating (e.g., flipping, swinging, etc.) a
robot arm of a []robotic assembly." Spec. Abstract. Figures 7 and 8 are
reproduced below for purposes of illustration.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Oracle America, Inc.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-011181
Application 14/578,675
F!G.7
Figures 7 and 8 depict a robotic arm assembly rotated between first
and second positions. Spec. Figs 7 and 8.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 11, 22, and 23 are illustrative and reproduced below with the
limitations at issue emphasized:
11. A method of operating a robotic assembly of a media
element storage library, comprising:
first moving a first free end of a robot arm of a robotic
assembly from a first position adjacent a first storage array of a
media element storage library to a second position adjacent a
second storage array that is spaced from and faces the first
storage array; and
second moving, simultaneous with the first moving, a
second free end of the robot arm from a first position to a second
position towards the second storage array and spaced from the
first position of the second free end, wherein the first free end is
opposite the second free end.
2
Appeal 2017-011181
Application 14/578,675
22. The method of claim 11, wherein the first free end faces in
a first direction in the first position, and wherein the first free end
faces in an opposite section direction in the second position.
23. The method of claim 11, wherein the second free end faces
in a first direction in the first position, and wherein the second
free end faces in an opposite section direction in the second
position.
Rejection
Claims 11-13, 15, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Ostwald (US 2004/0202062 Al; Oct. 14, 2004).
Final Act. 3---6. 2
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Ostwald describes first and
second storage arrays of a media element storage library that face one
another as recited in claim 11?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Ostwald describes first or
second free ends that face in opposite directions in first or second positions
as recited in claims 22 and 23?
ANALYSIS
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites "moving a first free end of a robot arm of a robotic
assembly from a first position adjacent a first storage array of a media
element storage library to a second position adjacent a second storage array
that is spaced from and faces the first storage array." The Examiner finds
2 The Examiner withdrew claim 14 from the rejection in the Examiner's
Answer. Ans. 6.
3
Appeal 2017-011181
Application 14/578,675
Ostwald describes this limitation. Final Act. 4 (citing Ostwald Figs. 4A-
4C). The Examiner finds Ostwald describes "both arrays face or orient to
themselves along a line parallel to 21." Id. (referring to arrays 31 and 33 of
Figs. 4A--4C, which the Examiner maps to claim 11 's first and second
storage arrays of a media element storage library). Figs. 4A--4C are
reproduced below.
F!G.4A
2J
/
·FIG,4C
Figures 4A--C depict a robotic arm assembly 68 in first, intermediate,
and second positions, respectively. Ostwald Figs. 4A--C.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because
robotic mechanism 12 of Ostwald '062 actually moves from a
first position adjacent a first row 31 of storage cells 16 to a
second or third position adjacent a second or third row 32, 33 or
4
Appeal 2017-011181
Application 14/578,675
storage cells 16 that are arranged within a common plane with
the first row 31 rather than that face the first row 31.
App. Br. 3 (citing Ostwald Abstract, i-fi-15-9, 24); see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellant's argument does not persuade us of error. Specifically,
Appellant has not provided evidence supporting a construction of "faces"
that precludes sides of the arrays facing one another, as is depicted in
Ostwald. See Ostwald Figs. 4A--4C. Specifically, the bottom of row 31
"faces" toward track 21 and the top of row 33 faces toward track 21. Id.
Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation given the evidence
before us, Ostwald's second storage array "is spaced from and faces the first
storage array."
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
11 and of claims 12, 13, and 15, which Appellant does not argue separately
with particularity.
Claims 2 2 and 2 3
Claims 22 and 23 recite "free ends" that face in opposite directions
between first and second positions. Appellant argues Ostwald's "gripper
mechanism 62, remains facing in the same direction as it moves between the
various positions." App. Br. 5---6; see also Reply Br. 2--4.
The Examiner finds with respect to both claims 22 and 23
Ostwald depicts that a surface end portion being considered the
first free end of gripping mechanism 62, which is nearest the
end tip of arm 68, first faces a direction defined along the upper
edge of row 31 in Fig.4A. While in Fig.4C, the first free end of
gripping mechanism 62 would be aligned along an opposite
section direction, or along the upper edge of opposite row 33,
which is opposite the upper edge of row 31.
Ans. 7.
5
Appeal 2017-011181
Application 14/578,675
We do not find the Examiner to have adequately explained how free
ends being aligned along opposite edges of different array sections describes
the free ends facing in opposite directions from one position to the other.
Rather, the directionality, or orientation, of the free ends remains unchanged
between the first and second positions. Accordingly, on the record before
us, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 22 and 23.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 11-13, and 15 and we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 22 and 23.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6