Ex parte TROUNSON

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 11, 1998

08193634 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 11, 1998)

Application for patent filed February 8, 1994. Accord-1
ing to appellant, the application is a continuation of Appli-
cation 07/655,857, filed February 15, 1991, abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JAMES E. TROUNSON

_____________
Appeal No. 95-2784
Application 08/193,6341
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, BARRETT and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
Appeal No. 95-2784
Application 08/193,634
2
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejec-
tion of claims 1 through 3, 18 and 19. Claims 4 and 7 through
10 have been allowed. Claims 5, 6, 11 through 17 and 20
through 23 have been canceled.
The invention is directed to a servo control system
for machine tools which cut or form pieces of material, such
as metal or wood, into desired geometric shapes.
The independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A system for controlling the formation of geo-
metric shapes in materials by moving a tool relative to a
workpiece along multiple axes of movement, comprising:
means defining data representative of geometric
shapes to be cut or otherwise formed in materials;
means for converting said data into a description of
a path to be followed by the tool and storing said descrip-
tion;
a plurality of motors respectively associated with
said multiple axes, each of said motors providing relative
Appeal No. 95-2784
Application 08/193,634
3
movement between the tool and the workpiece along an associ-
ated one of said axes;
a plurality of feedback devices respectively associ-
ated with said plurality of motors for providing feedback
information indicative of at least one of the actual position
and velocity of the tool along an associated axis; and
a single active processor for controlling said data
defining means and said data converting means, for receiving
feedback information from each of said feedback devices, and
for controlling the operation of each of said motors to pro-
vide
coordinated relative movement between the tool and the
workpiece along each of said multiple axes in accordance with
said stored path description.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Daggett et al. (Daggett) 4,786,847 Nov. 22, 1988
Hyatt 4,827,419 May 9, 1989
Claims 1 through 3, 18 and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Hyatt. Claims 1
through 3, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Daggett in view of Hyatt.
Appeal No. 95-2784
Application 08/193,634
Appellant filed an appeal brief on November 21, 1994. 2
We will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief.
Appellant filed a reply appeal brief on March 6, 1995. We
will refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The
Examiner stated in the Examiner’s letter mailed March 17, 1995
that the reply brief has been entered and considered but no
further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
4
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and
the Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for2
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 3, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under
§ 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses
every element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Anticipation
Appeal No. 95-2784
Application 08/193,634
5
is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency, each
and every element of a claimed invention." RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984),
citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 218
USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
On pages 4-6 of the brief, Appellant argues that
Hyatt fails to disclose the use of a single active processor
for controlling each of the functions recited in Appellant's
claim 1 and thereby does not anticipate Appellant's claims 1
through 3, 18 and 19. In particular, Appellant points out
that Hyatt teaches a data processor 12 that only performs a
portion of the overall control of the movement along each of
the three axes.
Appellant further points out that Hyatt teaches in Figure 3 an
additional processor which performs the function of receiving
feedback information and controlling the operation of one of
the motors.
Appeal No. 95-2784
Application 08/193,634
6
We note that Appellant's claim 1 recites "a single
active processor for controlling said data defining means and
said data converting means, for receiving feedback information
from each of said feedback devices, and for controlling the
operation of each of said motors to provide coordinated
relative movement between the tool and the workpiece along
each of said multiple axes in accordance with said stored path
description." Furthermore, we note that Appellant discloses
on page 3 of the specification that his invention is to
automate manual machine tools in a manner which adapts them to
be reliable and economical when used for small quantity part
production. Appellant discloses that in order to provide such
an automated machine tool, the invention integrates into a
single active processor all tasks which were heretofore
carried out in a distributed manner. On page 5 of the
specification, Appellant discloses that this is accomplished
by having the single active processor shared among
the many different tasks by a technique of real time multi-
tasking. On page 7, Appellant discloses that the single
active processor is a personal computer which receives
Appeal No. 95-2784
Application 08/193,634
7
feedback information, processes it and carries out the
operations necessary to
complete a feedback loop. Appellant states that "in the
present invention the [single active] processor 12 does
everything from closing all low level servo control loops to
the highest level user interface functions.
The Examiner argues on page 4 of the answer that
the Hyatt circuit shown in Figure 3 is not a processor because
Figure 3 does not show a central processing unit, CPU. In the
reply brief, Appellant argues that while it is recognized that
the term "processor" is often used in reference to a device
having a central processing unit, nevertheless, the term
"processor" in its broadest context does not mean that a given
processor must have a central processing unit. Appellant has
further buttressed this argument in the brief on page 5.
Appellant argues that the term "active processor" found in
Appellant's claim 1 must be interpreted as defined in the
specification. Appellant points to page 7, lines 16-20, of
the specification which defines an active
Appeal No. 95-2784
Application 08/193,634
8
processor as a device which receives feedback information,
processes it and carries out the operation necessary to
complete a feedback loop.
When interpreting a claim, words of the claim are
generally given their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless
it appears from the specification or the file history that
they were
used differently by the inventor. Carroll Touch, Inc. v.
Electro Mechanical Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d
1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In view of the definition of
Appellant's claimed term "active processor" and the claim
language recited in claim 1, we find that Appellant's claims
set forth a single active processor that not only controls the
data defining means and the data converting means but also
receives feedback information and controls the operation of
each motor to provide coordinate relative movement between the
tool and the workpiece along each of the multiple axes.
Turning to Hyatt, we find that Hyatt's processor 12
shown in Figure 1 does not receive feedback information and
Appeal No. 95-2784
Application 08/193,634
9
control the operation of each motor to provide coordinate
relative movement between the tool and the workpiece along
each of the multiple axes. We note that the servos 20, 21 and
22 shown
in Figure 1 and in further detail in Figure 3 perform these
functions. Furthermore, we find that the Hyatt servos are
active processors as used by Appellant in claim 1.
Therefore, we find that Hyatt fails to disclose a
single active processor as recited in Appellant's claims. We
will thereby not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the
Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case. It is
the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
Appeal No. 95-2784
Application 08/193,634
10
whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the
invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996) citing W. L. Gore & Assocs.,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548,
220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
On page 2 of the answer, the Examiner refers us to
the final action for the grounds of the rejection. In the
final action, the Examiner agrees that Daggett fails to teach
a single active processor to control the multi-axes machine.
The Examiner relies on Hyatt for a teaching of a single active
processor.
As we have found above, we fail to find that Hyatt
teaches a single active processor that not only controls the
data
defining means and the data converting means but also receives
feedback information and controls the operation of each motor
to provide coordinate relative movement between the tool and
Appeal No. 95-2784
Application 08/193,634
11
the workpiece along each of the multiple axes as recited in
Appellant's claims. Furthermore, we fail to find any
suggestion in Hyatt or Daggett to provide a single active
processor to perform these functions. Therefore, we will not
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1
through 3, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103.
Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-2784
Application 08/193,634
12
James A. Labarre
Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis
P.O. Box 1404
Alexandria, VA 22313-1404