Appeal 2006-2625
Application 10/033,879
at a zero speed (Faiman, p. 3, ¶ 0021). When the device of Faiman is in the “set up
mode” and the safety cover is open, 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, Faiman does not teach
“automatically” moving the device “at a second specified speed” when the door is
open. Rather, depending on the mode, Faiman either does not allow the device to
move at all, or it moves the device at a slower speed only when the user depresses
a run control button.
The Examiner also determined that Priestley discloses a device that uses an
interlock system to determine if a boom is in a lowered position and limits the
operating speed of the boom based on the position of the boom (Answer 4). In
particular, the examiner found that Priestley teaches that if the boom is not in the
lowered position, the device limits the speed of the boom to a speed that is non-
zero and slower than the speed of the boom when it is in the lowered position
(Answer 4). While we agree that Priestley teaches “limiting” the speed of the
boom based on the interlock (the device disables the high speed drive if the boom
is not cradled) (Priestley, col. 8, ll. 48-53 and col. 16, ll. 63-65), this is not what
claim 1 recites. Claim 1 requires that when the access means is open, the control
component operates the robot such that the robot “automatically moves at a second
specified speed.” We agree with the Appellants, as argued in page 12 of their
Brief, that Priestley does not teach controlling the boom to automatically move at a
slower speed. Rather, when the boom in Priestley is not in its lowered position, the
user is limited to operation of the boom in a low range speed mode; however the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013