iRobot Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 16, 2020

15340250 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2020)

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.
15/340,250 11/01/2016 Zivthan A. Dubrovsky 09945-0123003 2631
108858 7590 09/16/2020
Fish & Richardson PC (iROBOT)
P.O. Box 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
KISWANTO, NICHOLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2020 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):
patdoctc@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ZIVTHAN A. DUBROVSKY,
GREGG W. LANDRY,
MICHAEL J. HALLORAN, and JAMES LYNCH
____________________

Appeal 2020-001352
Application 15/340,250
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 34–39, 42–46, and 49–61. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, iRobot Corporation is the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001352
Application 15/340,250

2
Appellant’s “invention relates . . . to a remote control device and
associated method for inputting schedule information via IR signals to an
autonomous robotic device, such as a cleaning robot.” Spec. ¶ 2. Below, we
reproduce claim 34 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
34. A robotic system comprising:
a stationary charging device; and
an autonomous cleaning robot including a vacuum
system, the autonomous cleaning robot configured to:
initiate, according to scheduling information, a
cleaning operation in which the autonomous cleaning
robot autonomously navigates about a floor surface to
clean the floor surface according to a vacuum power
level;
receive, from a user operable remote device, a
command to initiate a docking operation in which the
autonomous cleaning robot returns to the stationary
charging device to dock at the stationary charging device;
send a return signal, to the user operable remote
device, upon receiving the command to initiate the
docking operation; and
initiate the docking operation in which the
autonomous cleaning robot autonomously returns to the
stationary charging device.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 34–39, 42–46, and 49–61 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written-description
requirement.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 34 recites, in relevant part, “A robotic system
comprising . . . an autonomous cleaning robot . . . configured to . . . send a
return signal, to the user operable remote device, upon receiving the
Appeal 2020-001352
Application 15/340,250

3
command to initiate the docking operation.” Appeal Br., Claims App.
(emphasis added). Each of independent claims 45 and 57 recites a similar
recitation. Id.
As we state above, the Examiner rejects all of the claims as failing to
comply with the written-description requirement. Non-Final Action 2.
Specifically, according to the Examiner,
[i]ndependent claims 34, 45, and 57 recite various iterations of
“send a return signal, to the user operable remote device, upon
receiving the command to initiate the docking operation”; said
limitation is not described in the [S]pecification in such a way
as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the
inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of
the claimed invention. The claims rely upon paragraph [0043]
of the [S]pecification for support of the claimed subject matter,
[and] although paragraph [0043] discloses a “return signal,” it
fails to disclose that said return signal is sent upon receiving the
command to initiate the docking operation.
Id. Based on our review of the record, however, we agree with Appellant
that the Specification provides written-description support for the discussed
claim recitation. See Appeal Br. 4–8; see Reply Br. 1–12.
Appellant’s Specification states that “[t]he communicated information
includes information for controlling a function of the robotic device, and at
least one of configuration information and scheduling information for the
robotic device.” Spec. ¶ 20. Thus, from the outset, it is clear that when
Appellant’s Specification speaks of communicated information or
information that is transferred, such information includes command
information.
Paragraph 43 of Appellant’s Specification states, in full:
In one embodiment of the invention, the robotic device
can be configured to provide a visual or audio signal upon the
Appeal 2020-001352
Application 15/340,250

4
completion of a transfer of configuration or scheduling
information. In an alternative embodiment, a return signal can
be sent from the robotic device to the communication device l2
upon the successful completion of an information transfer. The
robotic device can also be configured to illuminate a status light
on either device if and when a scheduling program is stored in
the memory.
Spec. ¶ 43. Accordingly, when this paragraph is read in view of
paragraph 20, it is clear that communicated information or information that
is transferred, for which the robotic device sends a return signal to the
communication device, includes command information.
Appellant’s Specification still further states that “the communication
device 12 can also be used to provide direct control information 18 to a
robotic device, based on a user input.” Id. ¶ 46 (bold omitted). “For a
mobile cleaning robot, . . . task[s sent to the robot] . . . could include . . .
return to a docking station.” Id. ¶ 47. Certain of Appellant’s figures
“show . . . views of an example of a particular communication device . . . .
[One figure] . . . shows a front-end view of the communication device . . .
[that includes] a wireless communication port 42, allowing the
communication device . . . to communicate remotely, using for example IR
signals, with a robotic device or other electronic device.” Id. ¶ 48 (bold
omitted). “In one embodiment, button 44 [of the wireless communication
device] could be used to . . . control a specific task of the robotic device
(such as initiating docking).” Id. ¶ 51 (bold omitted). Based on these and
other portions of Appellant’s Specification, it is clear that the information
transfer discussed in paragraph 43 includes the cleaning robot receiving a
docking-initiation command from the remote device, as claimed. It is also
clear that the Specification encompasses the cleaning robot sending a return
Appeal 2020-001352
Application 15/340,250

5
signal to the remote device in response to the robot having received such a
command, also as claimed.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s written-
description rejection of claims 34–39, 42–46, and 49–61.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s written-description rejection of all
claims.
In summary:
REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
34–39, 42–
46, 49–61
112(a) Written Description 34–39, 42–
46, 49–61