Ex Parte Skogerbo

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 18, 2012

10565436 (B.P.A.I. May. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PAL SKOGERBO
____________________

Appeal 2010-004494
Application 10/565,436
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES DONALD SMITH, Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
STEFAN STAICOVICI, and KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent
Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pal Skogerbo (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-14. Claims 3 and 9 have been
canceled. An oral hearing was held on April 18, 2012. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2010-004494
Application 10/565,436

2
THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. System for controlling the movements of objects in an
automated or remote operated system comprising independent
transporting means for moving a number of objects relative to
each other, the system being providing with means for
controlling the position and velocity of the objects relative to
each other, wherein each object is related to an imaginary three-
dimensional object having a defined geometric shape having
dimensions corresponding to or exceeding the physical
dimensions of the respective object in all directions, each
transporting means is related to a stop distance needed for the
respective transporting means to come to a complete stop, and a
critical allowed distance is defined between the defined
geometric shapes, whereby collisions between objects can be
avoided by changing at least one of a speed or direction of
movement of at least one of said transporting means when a
distance between defined geometric shapes moving on a
common axis corresponds to said critical allowed distance,
wherein said critical distance is dependent on the relative
movement between the respective objects.

THE REJECTIONS
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Lamb (US 7,034,669 B2, iss. Apr. 25,
2006);
2. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lamb and Krueger (US 4,621,974, iss. Nov. 11,
1986).

Appeal 2010-004494
Application 10/565,436

3
OPINION
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that
independent claims 1 and 7 are anticipated by Lamb. Appellant does not
present separate arguments for the dependent claims subject to the
anticipation rejection or for those subject to the obviousness rejection. App.
Br. 13.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to the alleged points of error raised by Appellant’s
arguments. We disagree with Appellant’s assertion of error in the finding of
anticipation. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the Examiner’s
ultimate finding of anticipation of the independent claims.
Both independent claims recite “wherein said critical distance is
dependent on the relative movement between the respective objects.”
Appellant’s arguments focus on the Examiner’s finding that Lamb discloses
such a critical distance. See, e.g., App. Br. 13 (Appellant arguing that, in
Lamb, “there is no consideration given to relative movement and no
teaching of defining a critical minimum distance dependent on relative
movement.”) We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s arguments
appear to be premised on an unduly narrow claim interpretation. Ans. 8.
The above-quoted “wherein” clause does not require “consideration” of
relative movement. We note that, for any two moving objects, the laws of
physics dictates that the critical distance between the objects is necessarily
Appeal 2010-004494
Application 10/565,436

4
dependent on the relative movement of the objects. See Ans. 7-8. Appellant
has not persuaded us that the Examiner applied to Lamb an unreasonably
broad interpretation of the pertinent claim language. As such, Appellant has
not persuaded us of error in the rejections of the claims.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-14 is
affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

MP