T 0711/20 () of 21.9.2020

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal arises from the decision of the examination division to refuse European patent application No. 15 183 816.6. The applicant (appellant) lodged the appeal in the prescribed form and within the prescribed period.

II. In the decision under appeal the examining division held that claims 1 and 5 of the main request do not meet the requirements of Article 84 EPC (clarity). The main request (obiter dictum), the first auxiliary request and the second auxiliary were held not to meet the requirements of Article 56 EPC (inventive step).

III. In a communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA 2020, the Board gave its preliminary opinion that claims 1 and 5 of the main request satisfied the requirement of Article 84 EPC, but that the appellant's arguments as to inventive step of the claimed subject matter of the main request appeared not to be convincing.

The Board further indicated that the appellant's arguments concerning the involvement of an inventive step of the claimed subject matter of the first and second auxiliary requests appeared to be not sufficiently substantiated.

IV. Oral proceedings before the Board took place on 21 September 2020.

V. The final requests of the appellant were

that the decision under appeal be set aside and

that a patent be granted on the basis either of the main request or, in the alternative, of the first or second auxiliary requests, all requests decided upon by the examining division and attached to the decision under appeal as annexes I to III.

VI. At the conclusion of proceedings the decision was announced. Further details of the proceedings can be found in the minutes thereof.

VII. In the present decision reference is made to the following document which was considered in the decision under appeal:

D1: JP 2014 104 524 A.

VIII. The lines of argument of the appellant are dealt with in detail in the reasons for the decision.

IX. Independent claim 1 according to the main request reads as follows:

A robot system (1), comprising:

a conveyor (10) configured to convey at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3);

a robot (20) comprising a plurality of holders (23a, 23b) configured to hold the at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3); and

a controller (40) configured to control the robot (20) to hold the at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3) conveyed on the conveyor (10) and transfer the at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3) to a predetermined place using at least one holder (23a, 23b) among the plurality of holders (23a, 23b),

the controller (40) comprising a control unit (41) and a storage (42),

with the control unit (41) including a conveyor controller (41a), a divided area setter (41b), an allocator (41c), a situation acquirer (41d), and an instructor (41e),

wherein the divided area setter (41b) is configured to set a plurality of divided areas (CA1, CA2) on the conveyor (10) in a width direction of the conveyor (10), and is configured to store the plurality of divided areas (CA1, CA2) in a storage (42); and

wherein the allocator (41c) is configured to allocate the plurality of holders (23a, 23b) respectively to the plurality of divided areas (CA1, CA2) so as to hold the at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3) when the at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3) is conveyed in the plurality of divided areas (CA1,CA2),

characterized in that

the divided area setter (41b) is configured to set the plurality of divided areas (CA1, CA2) based on stored divided area setting information (42a) including the position and dimensions of a movable area (WA) of the robot (20), the width of the conveyor (10), and the number of holders (23a, 23b),

wherein the robot system is configured such that

(a) when a first holder (23a) of the plurality of holders (23a, 23b) is in use, the instructor (41e) determines whether the other holder, namely a second holder (23b), is not being used (S107),

(b) when the second holder (23b) of the plurality of holders (23a, 23b) is not being used, the instructor (41e) operates the robot (20) to hold the workpiece (W) using the second holder (23b) (step S108), and

(c) when the second holder (23b) is in use, so that both the holders (23a and 23b) are in use, the instructor (41e) operates the robot (20) to transfer the workpieces (W) held by the holders (23a and 23b) to the conveyor (50), and then to hold the workpiece (W) using the first holder (23a) (step S109).

Independent claim 5 of the main request reads as follows:

A method for picking a workpiece, comprising the steps of:

conveying (S101) at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3) using a conveyor (10) through a movable area (WA) of a robot (20) comprising a plurality of holders (23a, 23b);

detecting (S102) a conveyance situation in which the at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3) is conveyed on the conveyor (10);

setting a plurality of divided areas (CA1, CA2) on the conveyor (10) in a width direction of the conveyor (10) based on stored divided area setting information (42a) including the position and dimensions of the movable area (WA) of the robot (20), the width of the conveyor (10), and the number of holders (23a, 23b);

identifying (S103), based on the conveyance situation, a divided area (CA1, CA2) to which the at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3) corresponds from among the plurality of divided areas (CA1, CA2) of the conveyor (10) that are divided in a width direction of the conveyor (10); and

operating (S106, S108) the robot (20) to hold the at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3) using one holder (23a, 23b) among the plurality of holders (23a, 23b) that is allocated to the divided area (CA1, CA2), wherein

(a) when a first holder (23a) of the plurality of holders (23a, 23b) is in use, an instructor (41e) determines whether the other holder, namely a second holder (23b) of the plurality of holders (23a, 23b) is not being used (step S107),

(b) when the second holder (23b) is not being used, the instructor (41e) operates the robot (20) to hold the workpiece (W) using the second holder (23b) (step S108), and

(c) when the second holder (23b) is in use, so that both the holders (23a and 23b) are in use, the instructor (41e) operates the robot (20) to transfer the workpieces (W) held by the holders (23a and 23b) to the conveyor (50), and then to hold the workpiece (W) using the first holder (23a) (step S109).

X. Independent claim 1 of the first auxiliary request reads as follows (additions with respect to claim 1 of the main request are underlined, deletions struck-through):

A robot system (1), comprising:

a conveyor (10) configured to convey at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3);

a robot (20) comprising a plurality of holders (23a, 23b) configured to hold the at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3); and

a controller (40) configured to control the robot (20) to hold the at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3) conveyed on the conveyor (10) and transfer the at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3) to a predetermined place using at least one holder (23a, 23b) among the plurality of holders (23a, 23b),

the controller (40) comprising a control unit (41) and a storage (42),

with the control unit (41) including a conveyor controller (41a), a divided area setter (41b), an allocator (41c), a situation acquirer (41d), and an instructor (41e),

wherein the divided area setter (41b) is configured to set a plurality of divided areas (CA1, CA2) on the conveyor (10) in a width direction of the conveyor (10), and is configured to store the plurality of divided areas (CA1, CA2) in a storage (42);

and wherein the allocator (41c) is configured to allocate the plurality of holders (23a, 23b) respectively to the plurality of divided areas (CAI, CA2) so as to hold the at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3) when the at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3) is conveyed in the plurality of divided areas (CA1,CA2),

characterized in that

the divided area setter (41b) is configured to set the plurality of divided areas (CA1, CA2) based on stored divided area setting information (42a) including the position and dimensions of a movable area (WA) of the robot (20), the width of the conveyor (10), and the number of holders (23a, 23b),

wherein the robot system is configured such that

(a) when a first holder (23a) of the plurality of holders (23a, 23b) is in use, the instructor (41e) determines whether [deleted: the] another holder of the plurality of holders, namely a second holder (23b), is not being used (S107),

(b) when the second holder (23b) of the plurality of holders (23a, 23b) is not being used, the instructor (41e) operates the robot (20) to hold the at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3) using the second holder (23b) (step S108), and

(c) when the second holder (23b) is in use, so that both the holders (23a and 23b) are in use, the instructor (41e) operates the robot (20) to transfer the workpieces (W) held by the holders (23 a and 23 b) to [deleted: the] a second conveyor (50), which is parallel to the conveyor (10), and then to hold the at least one workpiece (W, W1, W2, W3) using the first holder (23a) (step S109).

Independent claim 5 of the first auxiliary request has been adapted in accordance with the changes to claim 1.

XI. Independent claims 1 and 5 of the secondary auxiliary request comprise, in addition to the features of claims 1 and 5 of the first auxiliary request, the following features:

- on the conveyance path of the conveyor (10), the robot (20) has a movable area (WA);

- wherein the divided area setter (41b) is configured to set a plurality of divided areas (CA1, CA2) of the movable area (WA) on the conveyor (10);

- wherein the allocator (41c) is configured to store the result of the allocation as allocation information.

Reasons for the Decision

1. Main request - Clarity (Article 84 EPC)

1.1 The examining division found that, in the characterizing part of claims 1 and 5, the expression "the other holder" is not clear, because it is not clear if the other holder is part of the plurality of holders as defined at the beginning of the claims or not (cf. contested decision, section 2.1).

The Board concurs with the appellant's argument that the language of claim 1 of the main request uses the contested term, 'other holder' exactly once, and the claim language "... the other holder, namely a second holder, ..." clearly and unambiguously defines that the other holder is a second holder, while the claim language "...the second holder of the plurality of holders" clearly and unambiguously defines that the second holder is part of the plurality of holders (cf. statement setting out the grounds of appeal, section 2.1.1.1).

1.2 The Board is further not convinced by the examining division's finding that it is not clear if the workpiece in the characterizing part of the claims corresponds to the at least one workpiece conveyed by the conveyor (10) as defined at the beginning of the claims or not (cf. grounds for the decision, section 2.2).

1.3 The Board shares the opinion expressed by the appellant that a skilled person understands the term "the workpiece" to be part of "the at least one workpiece" (cf. statement setting out the grounds of appeal, section 2.1.1.2).

1.4 The examining division finally found, that in claims 1 and 5, it is not clear if the conveyor (50) in the characterizing part of the claims corresponds to the conveyor (10) defined at the beginning of the claims or not (cf. contested decision, section 2.3).

The appellant has however convincingly argued (cf. statement setting out the grounds of appeal, section 2.1.1.3) that the claim language leaves room for both interpretations. The Board concurs that the claim is broadly defined, but still allows a skilled person to determine the scope of the claim.

The Board therefore concludes that, contrary to the findings in the contested decision, the requirements of Article 84 EPC are met by claims 1 and 5 of the main request.

2. Main request - Inventive Step (Article 56 EPC)

2.1 According to Article 56 EPC, an invention is to be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to the person skilled in the art.

2.2 It is undisputed that document D1 is considered as closest state of the art.

2.3 The appellant however disagreed with the findings of the examining division, as discussed in the context of the auxiliary requests and referred to, obiter dictum, for the main request, on what is disclosed by D1 (cf. statement setting out the grounds of appeal, section 2.1.2).

2.4 In particular, the appellant expressed the opinion that D1 does not disclose the following feature of claim 1:

(i) "[...] the controller comprising [...] a storage, with the control unit including a conveyor controller, a divided area setter, [...] wherein the divided area setter is configured to set a plurality of divided areas on the conveyor in a width direction of the conveyor, and is configured to store the plurality of divided areas in a storage [...] wherein the divided area setter is configured to set the plurality of divided areas based on stored divided area setting information including the position and dimensions of a movable area of the robot, the width of the conveyor, [...]".

The appellant argued that the disclosure of D1 did not implicitly require a divided area setter that is part of a controller.

The appellant further argued, that the divided area setter of the main request was an electronic device, contrary to D1 which remained completely silent in this respect, and might address a human being instead.

In the appellant's opinion, the teaching of D1 could only be realized by using respective detections means (for example a separate sensor device for each respective detection region (divided areas)) that were positioned by a human being such that they were configured to detect the respective detection region. Such a design would require neither a storing device for storing the detection regions nor a divided area setter (that is part of the controller) that set the divided areas.

The Board is not convinced by these lines of argument. D1 describes a detection means 6 which is provided with a camera 11 placed above a supply conveyor 3 upstream from the robot 5 and an image processing means 12 which recognizes the positions of articles 1 from images captured by the camera 11. The image processing means 12 inputs the speed of conveyance of the articles 1 from an encoder fitted to the supply conveyor 3, recognizes the subsequent positions and orientations of the articles 1 when the articles 1 are conveyed to the holding position by the robot 5, and transmits the results of said recognition to a control means 7 (cf. par. [0009] of D1). To the Board the aforementioned clearly discloses a detection means 6, which is manifested by appropriate technical means, scilicet by an electronic device.

In addition, the Board is not convinced by the appellant's argument presented during oral proceedings, that D1 merely disclosed a detection means 6 that recognises conveyor regions on either side of a center line by using an identifiable marking of said center line on the conveyor belt. Since Fig.1 of D1 is a schematic representation of the article management system 2 disclosed in D1, the Board considers the thin chain double dashed line shown on the supply conveyor 3 in the figure, as a schematic indication of the course of the center line dividing the conveyor belt into two regions. Nowhere in the description of D1 can a clear disclosure of an identifiable marking of the center line on the supply conveyor itself be found.

Further to that, par. [0014] of D1 discloses that the image processing means 12 is constituted such that, for all of the articles 1, it recognizes the region, i.e. conveyor region SA or SB, in which they are positioned, and the orientation thereof, from images captured by the aforementioned camera 11. For executing this function, the image processing means 12 has to perform some kind of discrimination in order to relate the position of articles to one of the conveyor regions SA or SB. It appears therefore to the Board, that the finding of the examining division is correct, according to which D1 implicitly discloses some kind of storage for storing information on the divided conveyor regions SA and SB.

In consequence, the Board is of the opinion that feature (i) is disclosed by D1, and thus is not a distinguishing feature.

2.5 The appellant further argued that D1 did not disclose the following feature of claim 1:

(ii) "wherein the robot system is configured such that [...] (c) when the second holder is in use, so that both the holders are in use, the instructor operates the robot to transfer the workpieces held by the holders to the conveyor, and then to hold the workpiece using the first holder".

With respect to feature (ii), the appellant stated, that contrary to the finding of the examining division neither paragraph [0018] nor Fig.1 of D1 showed the disputed feature.

The Board, however, is of the opinion that feature (ii) has to be seen as part of a larger context, which describes the configuration of the robot when the first holder is in use. The assessment of the examining division has been performed with respect to the complete context in which feature (ii) is found (cf. section 3.1 of the contested decision).

The Board notes that claim 2 of D1 describes a system that in a scenario in which all of the holding means corresponding to a given conveyor region hold articles and when an article positioned downstream is conveyed through the aforementioned given conveyer region, the control means controls the robot so that the article is held by holding means which does not correspond to the aforementioned conveyor region. In addition, D1 describes in par. [0018] the same scenario including a transfer to the discharge conveyor in case all holding means of the robot are in use.

Accordingly, the Board concludes that feature (ii) is disclosed by D1, and thus is not a distinguishing feature.

2.6 In consequence of the above, the Board does not find any convincing line of argument demonstrating that the conclusions reached obiter dictum and with reference to section 3 of the contested decision, where inventive step starting from D1 is discussed, are not correct and have to be set aside.

3. First auxiliary request

The appellant contested that the examining division neglected to discuss the feature

(iii) "the second conveyor (50) is parallel to the conveyor (10)"

when presenting the inventive step argumentation in respect to the first auxiliary request (cf. statement of grounds of appeal, section 2.2).

The Board concurs with the appellant that claim 1 of the first auxiliary request differs from the main request by feature (iii). The examining division did however make reference to Fig.1 of D1 when citing the second conveyor in claim 1 (cf. sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the contested decision)and the Board notes, that feature (iii) is directly and unambiguously derivable from Fig.1 of D1. This finding remained undisputed by the appellant. Accordingly, the Board is of the opinion that feature (iii) is also disclosed by D1, and thus is not a distinguishing feature.

During oral proceedings before the Board, the appellant further stated that the first auxiliary request had been submitted only to address the clarity objection raised by the examining division but did not add to inventive step when compared with the main request so that no argument on inventive step was submitted (cf. minutes of oral proceedings of 21 September 2020). However, even with the clarity objection raised by the examining division being without merit, as set out in point 1 above, the objection of lack of inventive step still remains, as discussed in point 2 above.

3.1 In consequence, the Board does not find any convincing line of argument showing that the conclusions reached with reference to section 3 of the contested decision, where inventive step starting from D1 is discussed, are not correct and have to be set aside.

4. Second auxiliary request

4.1 The appellant contested that the examining division, when refusing the second auxiliary request, only provided very rough arguments and did not consider the particularities of the present case, and that the decision was not sufficiently founded (cf. statement of grounds of appeal, section 2.3).

4.2 The Board finds that the second auxiliary request was discussed during oral proceedings of 14 November 2019 before the examining division (cf. section 4 of the minutes of oral proceedings of 14 November 2019) and in section 3.1, sixth bullet point, as well as in section 4.5.2. of the contested decision.

4.3 The Board is further not convinced by the appellant's argument, that the examining division did not consider that D1 did not disclose the feature, that

(iv) "a divided area setter is configured to set a plurality of divided areas of the movable area of a robot."

(cf. statement of grounds of appeal, section 2.3)

To the Board, it is evident that a divided area setter configured to set the plurality of divided areas (CA1, CA2) based on stored divided area setting information (42a) including the position and dimensions of a movable area (WA) of the robot (20), as set out in claims 1 and 5 of the main request, intrinsically encompasses that the divided area setter is configured to set a plurality of divided areas of the movable area of a robot, so that feature (iv) does not provide any further limitation that could provide a basis for inventive step.

4.4 Neither in the statement setting out the grounds of appeal nor during oral proceedings before the Board did the appellant put forward any further reasons as to why the findings set out in the contested decision should be considered erroneous.

5. In conclusion, the Board considers that none of the arguments provided by the appellant demonstrate the incorrectness of the findings of the examining division with respect to the requests on file.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.