Ex Parte Sherbrooke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

13557990 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)

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.
13/557,990 07/25/2012 Evan C. Sherbrooke 068775-8002.US01 4173
25096 7590 11/02/2017
PFRKTNN TOTF TIP- NFA General
EXAMINER
PATENT-SEA NORTON, JENNIFER L
P.O. BOX 1247
SEATTLE, WA 98111 -1247 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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):
patentprocurement @perkinscoie. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EVAN C. SHERBROOKE and GLENN COLEMAN
Appeal 2017-006179
Application 13/557,9901
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—9, 14, and 15.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Celeritive
Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 10—13 have been withdrawn pursuant to a restriction requirement.
Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2017-006179
Application 13/557,990
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to numerically controlled milling,
which involves removing material from a workpiece with a milling machine
by driving a cutting tool along a programmed toolpath. Spec. 12.
Specifically, the application describes a workpiece milling technique where
a series of toolpath contours form non-concentric arcs such that the material
removal rate, and thus the tool load, is decreased as compared to prior
concentric toolpath techniques. See Spec, 5, 26. The technique involves
creating a Voronoi diagram that divides the workpiece into multiple Voronoi
faces, and modifying the Voronoi diagram to create new faces and new
boundary elements. The toolpaths are created based on the modified
Voronoi diagram. Spec. Tflf 29—33. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for milling selected portions of a workpiece by
a cutting tool of a numerical control machine, the numerical
control machine having associated therewith a processor and a
memory, the method comprising:
computing a Voronoi Diagram of the portion of the
workpiece;
adding one or more branches to the Voronoi
Diagram to create a Modified Voronoi Diagram, wherein
at least one such branch is substantially distinct from any
branch of the Voronoi Diagram, and wherein the addition
of at least one such branch creates at least one Voronoi
face substantially distinct from any face of the Voronoi
Diagram and one or more boundary elements substantially
distinct from the boundary of the portion of the workpiece;
2
Appeal 2017-006179
Application 13/557,990
identifying one or more Voronoi faces defined by
the Modified Voronoi Diagram;
traversing the one or more Voronoi faces of the
Modified Voronoi Diagram to create portions of a
toolpath; and
milling the selected portions of the workpiece by
moving the cutting tool in accordance with the created
portions of the toolpath.
The Examiner s Rejection
Claims 1—9, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jeong, “Tool Path Generation for Machining Free-
Form Pockets Using Voronoi Diagrams,” The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology (1998) (“Jeong”), Monkowski
(US 2010/0017762 Al; Jan. 21, 2010), and Diehl (US 2008/0269943 Al;
Oct. 30, 2008).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Monkowski teaches:
adding one or more branches to the Voronoi Diagram to create a
Modified Voronoi Diagram, wherein the addition of at least one
such branch creates at least one Voronoi face substantially
distinct from any face of the Voronoi Diagram and one or more
boundary elements substantially distinct from the boundary of
the portion of the workpiece
as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4. Appellants contend Monkowski fails to
teach modifying a Voronoi diagram by adding one or more branches to
create “one or more boundary elements substantially distinct from the
boundary of the portion of the workpiece.” App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 3^4.
3
Appeal 2017-006179
Application 13/557,990
Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. Monkowski
describes computing Voronoi regions 308 for an integrated circuit layout.
Monkowski || 17, 28; Fig. 3(b). Monkowski further describes bisecting
Voronoi regions 308 with bisectors 310. Monkowski, 128, Fig. 3(c). Even
if we agreed with the Examiner that Monkowski’s bisectors are branches that
create new Voronoi faces distinct from faces of an original Voronoi diagram
(Final Act. 4; Ans. 21—22), the Examiner has not shown Monkowski’s
bisectors also create “one or more boundary elements substantially distinct
from the boundary of the portion of the workpiece,” as recited in claim 1.
That is, the Examiner’s findings in the Final Action do not identify a specific
feature to meet the “one or more boundary elements” limitation (Final Act.
4), and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments does not address
this limitation (see Ans. 18—22).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claims 14 and 15 which recite
commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2—9, as being unpatentable
over Jeong, Monkowski, and Diehl.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—9, 14, and 15.
REVERSED
4