Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

Transcription

1 UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/278,389 08/05/2008 Sjoerd Bosga /30/2016 VENABLELLP P.O. BOX WASHINGTON, DC EXAMINER BOOKER, KELVIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2127 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2016 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 address( es): PTOMail@Venable.com lahill@venable.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

2 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SJOERD BOSGA and MARC SEGURA GOLORONS Appeal Technology Center 2100 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-8, 10-65, 67, and 68. Claims 9 and 66 have been withdrawn from consideration. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ABB Research Ltd, App. Br Final Act., Summary.

3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 3 The Invention Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates to "a press line of the type used for pressings, stamping, drawing or punching of principally metal parts from blanks. In particular, the invention discloses a press line comprising an improved mechanical press that may be synchronized with other devices in the press line in a dynamic or adaptive way." Spec. 1 ("TECHNICAL FIELD"). Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal (labeling added to contested limitations): 1. A method for operating a press line comprising at least one mechanical press with at least one electric drive motor, a ram, a mechanical element for operating said press, and at least one other device for loading; unloading or pressing; wherein the other device is any from the group of a loader, an unloader, a robot, or another press, the method comprising: [L 1] synchronizing a movement of the at least one mechanical press to a movement or position of the at least one other device in the press line during at least one pressing or non-pressing part of a press cycle, wherein the synchronizing comprises controlling and varying a speed of said at least one electric drive motor in a continuous, dynamic or adaptive manner; and 3 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed May 27, 2014); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 1, 2014); Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 23, 2013); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed Aug. 5, 2008). 2

4 [L2] synchronizing an unloader device or first robot during at least a part of the press cycle as a slave to the at least one mechanical press, synchronizing a loader device or second robot as a slave to the unloader device or first robot, and synchronizing said at least one mechanical press as a slave to the loader device or second robot. Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Aoshima US 2004/ Al Jan. 8, 2004 Rejection on Appeal Claims 1-8, 10-65, 67, and 68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aoshima. Ans. 2. CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br ), we decide the appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 1-8, 10-65, 67, and 68 on the basis of representative claim 1. ISSUE Appellants argue (App. Br ) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over the cited prior art is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Under 103, did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art teaches or at least suggests limitations L 1 and L2, as recited in claim 1? 3

5 ANALYSIS In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief so that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R (c)(l)(iv). We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 1, and we incorporate herein and 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 reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference, unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows. Limitation LI With respect to limitation L 1, Appellants contend: Aoshima only suggests synchronizing a speed of sub motor 25 to the speed of the main motor 15 of a single press. Aoshima does not suggest synchronizing movement of different elements of a press line with each other. Thus, Aoshima does not suggest during at least one pressing or non-pressing portion of a press cycle synchronizing movement of a mechanical press to movement or position of another device in a press line, synchronizing other elements of a press line with the mechanical press or with each other, controlling and varying a speed of a motor. App. Br. 23. The issue presented turns on the claim construction of the claim terms "devices" of "mechanical press( es)," as recited in claim 1. 4

6 vve note, "[i]n the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations... limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Absent an express intent to impaii a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation om ittecn. ' / We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because they are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Under a broad but reasonable interpretation; we find the scope of disputed limitation LI; "synchronizing... one mechanical press to... at least one other device in the press line... wherein the synchronizing comprises controlling and varying the speed of said at least one electric drive motor," reads on Aoshima's synchronizing the speed of main motor 15 and sub motor 25. We agree with the Examiner's claim interpretation that claim 1 's "one mechanical press with at least one electric drive motor" does not preclude two motors. Ans. 20, Final Act. 4. Appellants also contend, regarding limitation L 1: The Examiner asserts that Aoshima suggests varying a speed of a motor as recited in the claims, citing paragraphs 0036 and However, these paragraphs simply suggest that a controller sets the speed of the motor in response to a speed instruction. Aoshima suggests in paragraph 0048 that each stage 5

7 has a preset motor speed. This contradicts the Examiner's assertion that the speed of the motor is variable. App. Br We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, because they are again not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. We find the recitation of "synchronizing comprises controlling and varying a speed of said at least one electric drive motor in a continuous, dynamic or adaptive manner" reads on Aoshima's teaching of a controllable speed motor because the controllable speeds of Aoshima's main motor 15 and submotor 25 teach or at least suggest "controlling and varying a speed of said at least one electric drive motor." Aoshima i-fi Limitation L2 Appellants further contend, regarding limitation L2: Additionally, Aoshima does not suggest synchronizing a loader, unloader or robots as recited in claims 1, 36 and 65. Aoshima only suggests in paragraph 0055 that a transfer feeder may be present if the press is used as a transfer press. Aoshima also suggests in paragraph 0055 that it is possible to "cope with the speed required by the transfer feeder". This suggests a fixed transfer feeder speed. Aoshima does not suggest the elements of the press line recited in claims 1, 3 6 and 65 or the synchronization of those elements. App. Br. 25. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Aoshima teaches the "synchronizing" step L2 including a "mechanical press," an "unloader device or first robot," and an "loader device or second robot." Ans , Final Act In further support of the Examiner's findings, we specifically find Aoshima's workpiece carrying robot teaches or at least suggests the "unloader" claim limitation (Aoshima i154), and Aoshima's transfer feeder 6

8 teaches or at least suggests the "loader" claim limitation. Aoshima if 55. We also find Aoshima's synchronous operation of the whole press line being sped up teaches or at least suggests "synchronizing" limitation L2. Aoshima ir 54. We note Appellants have not cited to an explicit definition of mechanical press, loader device, unloader device, or robot in the Specification that would preclude the Examiner's broader reading. We find Appellants' invention is simply a combination of familiar elements that when combined, at the time of the invention, would have realized a predictable result. Moreover, on this record, Appellants have provided no evidence that combining such teachings was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art," (Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)), nor have Appellants presented evidence that this incorporation yielded more than expected results. Further, Appellants have not provided objective evidence of secondary considerations which our reviewing court guides "operates as a beneficial check on hindsight." Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We also note Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner's factual findings and legal conclusions regarding the teachings and suggestions of the cited prior art. Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. 7

9 Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2-8, 10-65, 67, and 68 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err with respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 1-8, 10-65, 67 and 68 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over the cited prior art of record, and we sustain the rejection. and 68. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-65, 67, No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R (a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8