PTAB

IPR2016-01047

Fanuc Corp v. DifFracto Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Positioning a Member Relative to an Object Surface
  • Brief Description: The ’390 patent relates to machines for measuring surfaces of three-dimensional objects. The technology utilizes non-contact sensors to sense the dimension, location, and attitude of part surfaces, and a control computer to position a member, such as a robot arm or sensor, relative to the object.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kirsch and Johnston - Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, and 15-17 are obvious over Kirsch in view of Johnston.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kirsch (Patent 4,187,051) and Johnston (Technical Memorandum 33-678).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kirsch disclosed a robotic system with a gripper ("member") and positioning means (transfer device) controlled by a minicomputer. Kirsch used a video camera system to determine the location and orientation of an object for pickup. Petitioner contended that to the extent Kirsch did not explicitly teach sensing an object's attitude in "at least two planes," Johnston supplied this missing element. Johnston taught using multiple optical proximity sensors on a robot hand to provide a "sense of feel" and measure the surface slope in two orthogonal directions using triangulation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kirsch and Johnston because Johnston expressly taught using its proximity sensor arrangement to control a robot gripping device to increase productivity and accuracy. This provided a direct suggestion to enhance Kirsch’s camera-based system, which lacked a "sense of feel," with Johnston's more detailed surface sensing technology to improve object gripping performance.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because combining Johnston’s known sensing technique with Kirsch’s known robotic platform was a straightforward application of existing technologies to achieve the predictable result of more accurate object location and manipulation.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Arditty - Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, and 15-17 are anticipated by Arditty.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Arditty (Patent 4,209,252).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Arditty disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims. Arditty described an automated optical probe assembly for detecting the position of a curved surface, such as a contact lens. Petitioner mapped Arditty’s automated scanning arrangement to the claimed "positioning means," the optical probe to the "non-contact sensor," and the conventional computer program controlling the system to the "controller means." Petitioner argued that Arditty's system scanned a light beam across the object surface in "two intersecting planes," thereby sensing the attitude of the surface in at least two planes as required by the claims. The system also determined data relating to the range between points on the object and the sensor by determining the z-position of points on the surface.

Ground 3: Anticipation by Ishii - Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, and 15-17 are anticipated by Ishii.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ishii ("Feature Extraction of Three-Dimensional Objects and Visual Processing in a Hand-Eye System Using Laser Tracker," a 1977 publication).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ishii’s "HAND-EYE" system anticipated the claims. The system comprised a manipulator ("hand") and a laser tracker ("eye") that functioned as an intelligent robot. Petitioner mapped the robot manipulator to the "positioning means," the laser tracker (an image dissector camera) to the "non-contact sensor means," and the controlling computer to the "controller means." Ishii’s system acquired the three-dimensional coordinates of multiple non-colinear laser spots on an object's surface to determine its shape, size, and surface condition. Petitioner contended that by sensing the 3D coordinates of multiple points, Ishii's system necessarily sensed the attitude of the surface in at least two planes.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 2) based on Kirsch in view of Clerget (Patent 4,146,926) and/or Ishii, relying on similar theories of improving Kirsch's sensing capabilities with more advanced three-dimensional optical scanning technology.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Sensing the Attitude of Said Surface": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean "detecting information indicative of the position or orientation of the surface relative to a known reference." This construction distinguishes the act of "sensing" raw data from the subsequent "interpreting" or calculating of a final attitude value, a distinction Petitioner argued was supported by the patent's specification.
  • "Positioning Means for Positioning a Member": Petitioner identified this as a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph. Based on the specification, Petitioner contended the corresponding structure was a robot or a portion of a robot, such as a robot arm.
  • "Controller Means...": Petitioner also identified this as a means-plus-function term. Petitioner asserted that the corresponding structure was a "programmable control computer for performing an algorithm" to control the positioning means. The petition noted that the ’390 patent specification provided limited detail on any specific algorithm or structure for the controller.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, and 15-17 of the ’390 patent as unpatentable.