Appeal 2006-2625
Application 10/033,879
the Examiner of the teaching of Faiman does not correspond to what is recited in
claim 1. With regard to the scope and content of Faiman, we find, as argued by the
Appellants, that, in Faiman, the speed at which the device operates is dependent on
the mode setting (i.e., run mode or set-up mode) (Brief 11). Faiman does not teach
or suggest that the speed of the device is dependent on the interlock, which
indicates whether the safety cover is open or closed (Faiman, p. 3, ¶¶ 0021-0022).
With regard to the scope of claim 1, we note that the claim requires the
control component to operate the robot such that “the picker robot automatically
moves at a first specified speed” when the access means is closed. The Examiner
found that the device of Faiman operates at more than one speed (“higher range
and slow”) when the safety cover is closed (Answer 5). In particular, when the
device of Faiman is in the “run mode” and the safety cover is closed, the device
operates at a first range of speeds set by the parameter control buttons (50)
(Faiman, p. 3, ¶ 0021). When the device of Faiman is in the “set up mode” and the
safety cover is closed, the device is limited so that it operates at a speed slower
than in run mode; however, it operates only when the user depresses the run
control button (52) (Faiman, p. 3, ¶ 0022). As such, by the Examiner’s own
admission, Faiman does not teach or suggest “automatically” moving at “a first
specified speed” when the access door is closed.
Claim 1 also requires the control component to operate the robot such that
“the picker robot automatically moves at a second specified speed that is a non-
zero speed and is slower than the first speed.” When the device of Faiman is in the
“run mode” and the safety cover is open, the device will not operate at all, i.e., it is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013