James Dyson et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 30, 2019

14267585 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2019)

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.
14/267,585 05/01/2014 James DYSON 424662057201 6980
25227 7590 08/30/2019
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
1650 TYSONS BOULEVARD
SUITE 400
MCLEAN, VA 22102
EXAMINER
CARLSON, MARC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2019 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):
EOfficeVA@mofo.com
PatentDocket@mofo.com
pair_mofo@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAMES DYSON, PETER DAVID GAMMACK,
MARK STAMFORD VANDERSTEGEN-DRAKE, and
PAUL JOSHUA BOTT
____________________

Appeal 2017-011715
Application 14/267,585
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, PAUL J. KORNICZKY, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2017-011715
Application 14/267,585

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated July 7,
2016 (“Final Act.”) and the Advisory Action dated December 30, 2016,
rejecting claims 2–12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an autonomous surface treating appliance.
Claim 2, the only independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below with
paragraph indentations added and disputed limitations italicized for
emphasis:
2. A drive arrangement for a mobile robot comprising
a transmission unit for transmitting drive from a motor unit
to a drive shaft extending from the transmission unit along a
drive shaft axis,
a swing arm coupled to the transmission unit so as to swing
angularly about the drive shaft axis throughout a rotational range
between a minimum and a maximum limit,
a drive sprocket mounted to the drive shaft and a driven
pulley mounted on a portion of the swing arm remote from the
drive shaft and being rotatable about an axis parallel to the drive
shaft axis,
a track constrained around the drive sprocket and the
driven pulley,
wherein when in use on an adjacent planar floor surface a
lowest portion of the drive sprocket is raised above a lowest
portion of the driven pulley such that the track always provides

1 Dyson Technology Limited (“Appellant”) is the applicant pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief,
dated May 16, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”), at 2.
Appeal 2017-011715
Application 14/267,585

3

an inclined driving surface facing the adjacent planar floor
surface throughout the rotational range of the swing arm,
wherein the inclined driving surface extends between a
first vertical plane extending through a rotational axis of the drive
sprocket and a second vertical plane extending through a
rotational axis of the driven pulley.

REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Kim
Kritman
US 2004/0262060 A1
US 2006/0037789 A1
Dec. 30, 2004
Feb. 23, 2006

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 2, 3, and 5–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim.
2. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim and Kritman.
Appellant seeks our review of these rejections.

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1: Claims 2, 3, and 5–12
as Unpatentable Over Kim
The Examiner finds that Kim discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 2. Final Act. 3–5; Adv. Act. 2. More specifically, the
Examiner finds that Kim discloses “a track constrained around the drive
sprocket and the driven pulley . . . wherein when in use on an adjacent
planar floor surface a lowest portion of the drive sprocket is raised above a
Appeal 2017-011715
Application 14/267,585

4

lowest portion of the driven pulley such that the track always provides an
inclined driving surface facing the adjacent planar floor surface throughout
the rotational range of the swing arm.” Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner’s
annotated Figure 4 of Kim is reproduced below.

The Examiner annotated Kim’s Figure 4 to map the limitations of claim 2.
Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that Kim’s driving force transmitting means
(belt) 130 is the recited track. Id. at 3; Adv. Act. 2. According to the
Examiner, a track means “to follow a particular path,” and “the course along
which something moves or progresses.” Ans. 15 (citing the Google and
Meriam-Webster dictionaries, respectively) (emphasis omitted). Using these
definitions, the Examiner finds that Kim’s “continuous belt (track) follows a
Appeal 2017-011715
Application 14/267,585

5

tracked path,” and “defines a course along which the driven pulley and drive
sprocket are connected to impart device moment.” Ans. 15.
Appellant proposes a different definition for the term “track.”
Appellant asserts, in part, that based on the dictionary definition of track as,
“Either of two endless belts on which a tracklaying vehicle travels,” the
recited “track” should be construed as “a belt on which a vehicle travels.”
Appeal Br. 4 (citing the Merriam-Webster dictionary).
We do not find that the definitions of “track” proposed by the
Examiner or Appellant are entirely satisfactory. The Examiner’s first
proposal that a track means “to follow a particular path” is a verb form that
is inappropriate for the noun form recited in the claims. The Examiner’s
second proposal that a track means “the course along which something
moves or progresses,” although a noun, refers to a usage, synonymous with
path, route, or course, that is inappropriate in the context of the claim
language.
The Specification discusses the track in several places. It states that
the “continuous belt or track 98 provides the interface between the robot 2
and the floor.” Spec 15:14–15. The Specification also explains:
[The] track [is] constrained around the sprocket and the
pulley, wherein the sprocket and the pulley are arranged
such that the track presents an inclined driving surface.

This ramped climbing surface relative to the adjacent
surface to be treated improves the ability of the robot to
climb over imperfections in the surface to be treated, as
well as over raised obstacles such as electrical
cables/flexes or edges of rugs for example. Moreover, due
to the portion of the track forward of the trailing wheel,
which is inclined relative to the horizontal, a small contact
patch is maintained which provides a maneuvering benefit
Appeal 2017-011715
Application 14/267,585

6

since it does not suffer the extent of slippage that would
be experienced if a significant portion of the track was in
contact with the floor surface.
Spec. 3:2–12.
In light of the dictionary definitions presented by the Examiner and
Appellant, and the usage of “track” in the Specification, we construe “track”
to mean “a belt on which the robot travels and which contacts the travel
surface (e.g., floor, carpet).” Kim does not disclose a track because Kim’s
belt 130 does not contact the travel surface and Kim’s robot travels on
wheels 110, 120, not belt 130. Kim ¶ 27. Accordingly, Kim does not
disclose all of the limitation of claim 2, or claims 3, and 5–12 which depend
from claim 2. Thus, the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5–12 is not sustained.

Rejection 2: Claim 4
as Unpatentable Over Kim and Kritman
Claim 4 depends from independent claim 2. The Examiner’s reliance
on Kritman for disclosure of a “driven pulley [that] has a greater diameter
than the diameter of the drive sprocket” does not remedy the deficiencies of
Kim. In addition, neither the Examiner nor Appellant address whether it
would have been obvious to modify Kim using the track disclosed in
Kritman. Thus, the rejection of claim 4 is not sustained.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are REVERSED.

REVERSED