Ex Parte Valen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

10491295 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROALD VALEN and RALPH SJOBERG
____________________

Appeal 2010-006414
Application 10/491,295
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN W. MORRISON, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006414
Application 10/491,295

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
26-50. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

CLAIMS
The claims are directed to a portable unit connected to a robot system
for programming and operation of the movements of a robot. Spec. 1.
Claim 26, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
26. An industrial robot system, comprising:
an industrial robot including a manipulator;
a control system; and
a hand-held portable programming and control unit,
connected to the control system for programming and operating
the robot, the hand-held portable programming and control unit
comprising
a handle comprising a gripping surface configured to be
gripped by a hand of an operator, wherein the hand-held
portable programming and control unit is adapted to adopt a
first operating position for a gripping right hand in which the
robot is operated with a left hand of the operator, wherein the
hand-held portable programming and control unit is adapted to
adopt a second operating position for a gripping left hand in
which the robot is operated with the right hand, the hand-held
portable programming and control unit is arranged to be rotated
through 180 degrees when moved between the operating
positions, and wherein the gripping surface is arranged
symmetrically around a longitudinal line to allow comfortable
gripping by either the right or left hand of the operator,
a display screen configured to display a picture,
a first function control adapted to orient the picture
displayed by the display screen so as to be legible to an
operator, and
Appeal 2010-006414
Application 10/491,295

3
a second function control integrated into the gripping
surface, the second function control enabling operation of the
manipulator.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Szakaly
Nose
Smith
Armstrong
Behr
US 5,038,089
US 5,079,491
US 5,954,692
US 6,344,791 B1
US 6,590,755 B1
Aug. 6, 1991
Jan. 7, 1992
Sep. 21, 1999
Feb. 5, 2002
Jul. 8, 2003

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
anticipated by Szakaly.
2. Claims 30, 35-40, 421, and 44-48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) as being anticipated by Nose.
3. Claims 49 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Szakaly.
4. Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Szakaly and Nose.
5. Claim 43 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nose.

1 Although the Examiner inadvertently omitted claim 42 from the statement
of the rejection (Fin. Rej. 5; Ans. 4), the Examiner addressed claim 42 in the
detailed explanation of the rejection (Fin. Rej. 9; Ans. 8).
Appeal 2010-006414
Application 10/491,295

4
6. Claims 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nose and Szakaly.
7. Claims 32 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nose and Armstrong.
8. Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nose and
Behr.
9. Claim 41 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nose and Smith.

ANALYSIS
Rejection 1, Anticipation by Szakaly
Addressing claims 26 and 27, the Examiner finds that Szakaly
discloses all of the elements of claim 26 including “a display screen
configured to display a picture [Fig 1] a first function control is adapted to
orient the picture displayed by the display screen, so as to be legible to an
operator [Column 9 & 10 lines 59 - 68 & 1 - 7 respectively].” Ans. 4.
Appellants argue “Szakaly does not disclose a hand-held portable
programming and control unit that includes a display screen.” App. Br. 12.
In response, the Examiner asserts that “nowhere in the claims does it
indicate that the display has to be integral with the ‘portable control
device.’” Ans. 15. However, claim 26 requires “a hand-held portable
programming and control unit . . . comprising . . . a display screen.”
Therefore, the display screen is not part of the portable programming and
control unit in claim 26. The Examiner has erred as the display of Szakaly is
clearly separate from the hand held programmable control unit, see fig. 1.
As such, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 26 and 27.
Appeal 2010-006414
Application 10/491,295

5

Rejection 2, Anticipation by Nose
Addressing claim 30, the Examiner finds that Nose discloses a
“control unit comprising being enclosed and provided with a handle
comprising a gripping surface for the gripping hand of an operator [Fig 3], a
display screen adapted to show a picture [Fig 3].” Ans. 5. Essentially, the
Examiner has found that the sides of the teaching box 18 are handles or
gripping surfaces as required by claim 30.
The Appellants counter that
Nose et al. does not show or describe a gripping
surface as recited in the claims. It is not a
reasonable interpretation that the entire teaching
box is a handle. Nose et al. does not disclose that
the teaching box includes a handle. Additionally,
Nose et al. does not disclose that the teaching box
may be rotated 180 degrees between a first
operating position and a second operating position.
Nose et al. appears to disclose only one operating
position. This is clear from Fig. 3, which illustrates
labels on the keypad that face on one direction.
Rotating the teaching box would result in the
labels appearing upside down.
App. Br. 14. We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments.
Appellants have not persuasively explained why the sides of the teaching
box 18 of Nose cannot reasonably be considered a handle having a gripping
surface. Furthermore, nothing in Nose would prevent it from being operated
if rotated 180 degrees. Finally, claim 30 does not require the display to be
oriented in more than a single position, only that the display is visible in
both positions. As shown in fig. 3, the display is oriented “so as to be
legible to the operator” as required by claim 30. Similarly, the method of
Appeal 2010-006414
Application 10/491,295

6
claim 45 does not require multiple orientations, but only “orienting the
picture on the display screen into an orientation legible to the operator.”
Again, the orientation of Nose’s fig. 3 satisfies this claim limitation. Claims
35-40, 42, 44, and 46-48 depend from claim 30 or 45 and are not argued
separately. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 30 and 45, and
dependent claims 35-40, 42, and 44-48 which depend therefrom.

Rejection 3, Anticipation or Alternately Obviousness over Szakaly
Addressing claims 49 and 50, while the Examiner finds that Szakaly
has a display (ans. 18), the Examiner fails to make any findings that Szakaly
discloses a “hand-held portable programming and control unit comprising
… a display screen,” as required in the underlying independent method
claim 45. Furthermore, the Examiner does not articulate any reason why it
might have been obvious to modify Szakaly to have such a feature. As such,
we do not affirm the rejection of claims 49 and 50.

Rejection 4, Obviousness over Szakaly and Nose
Addressing claims 28 and 29, which depend from claim 26, the
Examiner does not rely on Nose for any teaching that would overcome the
deficiency in the rejection of claim 26. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 28 and 29.

Rejection 5, Obviousness over Nose
Addressing claim 43, the Examiner finds
all the limitations of claim 28 are disclosed by
Nose, where Nose further discloses the portable
Appeal 2010-006414
Application 10/491,295

7
controller being connected to the robot via a cable.
Nose discloses the claimed invention except for
not stating that it is red in color. It would have
been an obvious matter of design choice to have
the cable be colored in visually distinct color to
prevent accidents, since applicant has not disclosed
that the cable being red solves any stated problem
or is for any particular purpose and it appears that
the invention would perform equally well with any
bright contrasting, distinct color.
Ans. 11. The Appellants offer only a blanket statement that the cable of the
proposed combination is not red and do not advance any substantive
argument against the Examiner’s determination that color is an obvious
design choice. As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 43.

Rejection 6, Obviousness over Nose and Szakaly
Addressing claim 31, the Examiner has determined that it would be
possible for the operator to “carry the hand held portable programming and
control unit and at the same time activate the second function control with
the hand gripping the hand held portable programming and control.” Ans.
12. Without specifically addressing the Examiner’s reasoning in combining
Nose and Szakaly, the Appellants argue that “Szakaly does not suggest a
hand-held portable programming and control unit, but rather an end effector
of a robot hand, it does not make sense to combine Nose et al. and Szakaly
since it does not make any sense for an operator to hold the end effector of
the robot and certainly not to carry the end effector about.” App. Br. 18-19.
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument. The teaching box 18 of
Nose is a portable programing unit which can be moved. As such, we
sustain the rejection of claim 31.
Appeal 2010-006414
Application 10/491,295

8

Rejection 7, Obviousness over Nose and Armstrong
Addressing claims 32 and 33, the Examiner finds that Nose teaches all
of the elements of the claims except “the gripping surface least partly
consists of a layer of a flexible material in the form of an elastic diaphragm.”
Ans. 12. While reiterating previous arguments, Appellants add that
“[p]roviding the teaching box suggested by Nose et al. with a sensor
suggested by Armstrong does not suggest the hand-held portable
programming and control unit recited in the claims.” App. Br. 20. This
argument is not responsive to the Examiner’s findings and, therefore, is not
persuasive. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 32 and 33.

Rejections 8 and 9
Addressing claims 34 and 41, the Examiner makes additional findings
related to the multi-channel contact of claim 34 and wireless features of
claim 41. Ans. 13-14. Appellants present no arguments related to these
features, but only rely on the foregoing arguments with regard to
anticipation by Nose alone. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 34
and 41.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26-29, 49,
and 50 is reversed and the rejection of claims 30-48 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)(1)(iv) .
Appeal 2010-006414
Application 10/491,295

9

AFFIRMED IN PART

msc