David Vogel et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 28, 2020

2020003943 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/591,832 01/07/2015 David Vogel V02.101 8458
26344 7590 12/28/2020
JENNIFER L. BALES
MOUNTAIN VIEW PLAZA
1520 EUCLID CIRCLE
LAFAYETTE, CO 80026-1250
EXAMINER
MILLS JR., JOE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2020 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 e-mail address(es):
jbales@me.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID VOGEL and GARY F. SKINNER
Appeal 2020-003943
Application 14/591,832
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7, 9–13, 15, and 21–27.2 See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as the inventors,
David Vogel and Gary Skinner. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Although claim 8 is included in the Office Action Summary of rejected
claims (Final Act. 1), we note that there is no outstanding rejection of claim
8. See generally Final Act.; see also Appeal Br. 3, 20 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-003943
Application 14/591,832

2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to a force sensing control apparatus for
welding machines. Claim 1, reproduced below with certain limitations
italicized, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for controlling welding power of a welding
machine having a welding machine torch wielded by a welder,
the apparatus comprising:
a force sensing transducer assembly for directly sensing
force applied by the welder at a pressing surface and for
generating a force signal based on the sensed force, without
movement past compression or deformation at the pressing
surface;
a control interface module for generating a welding
machine control signal based upon the force signal, the control
signal configured to control the welding power of the welding
machine;
a force signal transmission medium for transmitting the
force signal to the control interface module;
a control signal transmission medium for transmitting the
control signal to the welding machine; and
a welding power transmitting element for transmitting
welding power to the welding machine torch, thereby controlling
welding arc power.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lawrence US 3,272,949 Sept. 13, 1966
Sajna US 6,386,023 B1 May 14, 2002
Wakasugi US 2004/0194550 A1 Oct. 7, 2004
Bland US 2009/0200283 A1 Aug. 13, 2009
Strifler US 2012/0065972 A1 Mar. 15, 2012
Upton US 2014/0144898 A1 May 29, 2014
Yoon US 2015/0305671 A1 Oct. 29, 2015
Appeal 2020-003943
Application 14/591,832

3
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 7, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Upton and Sajna.
II. Claims 2–5, 10, 12, 13, and 21–23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Upton, Sajna, and Bland.
III. Claims 9 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Upton, Sajna, and Yoon.
IV. Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Upton, Sajna, Bland, Strifler, and Lawrence.
V. Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Upton, Sajna, and Wakasugi.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I; Obviousness based on Upton and Sajna
The Examiner finds that Upton discloses many of the limitations of
claim 1, including a force sensing transducer assembly for directly sensing
force applied by the welder at a pressing surface and for generating a force
signal based on the sensed force, but does not explicitly disclose that the
sensed force is applied without movement past compression or deformation
at the pressing surface. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner finds that Sajna’s
force sensing transducer detects motion based on a change in resistance,
which according to the Examiner meets the claimed “movement” limitation.
Id. at 5. The Examiner considers that it would have been have obvious to
substitute Sajna’s transducer for that of Upton to predictably measure the
force applied at the pressing surface. Id. According to the Examiner, such a
substitute would advantageously reduce the required range of motion for
Appeal 2020-003943
Application 14/591,832

4
control without altering how the operator uses the device, consistent with
Upton’s stated goals. Id. at 5–6 (citing Upton ¶ 13).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the force in Upton applied by the
welder is not directly sensed at a pressing surface; rather, Upton’s “sensor 82
detects the movement or position of the control lever.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing
Upton ¶ 30). According to Appellant, Upton’s force is applied at one side of
a lever and sensed at a different side of the lever. Id.
The Examiner responds that there is no distinction between how
Upton and the claimed invention operate because Upton “directly measure[s]
the pressure applied to the control lever.” Ans. 5 (citing Upton ¶ 10). The
Examiner asserts that the only difference is that Upton does not describe
“compressive movement inherent in pressure transducers,” though Sanja
describes such compressive movement. Id. (citing Upton ¶ 30). According
to the Examiner, “detecting the motion of [Upton’s] control lever . . . is
indistinct from directly sensing the force applied to the pressing surface
described in the instant application. . . . There is no other way a pressure
transducer could ‘detect’ motion.” Id.
Appellant replies that, because Upton uses a control lever, any
pressure transducer will be located at a different portion of the lever from the
pressing surface. Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellant asserts that “a lever
by definition is a bar that rotates on a pivot,” and evidence was submitted
that motion of a lever is not equivalent to motion of a force applied at a
pressing surface. Id. at 2–3 (citing Appeal Br. 22 (Evidence App. K4, K5,
K2A)).
Appellant has the better position. Although we appreciate that Upton
uses a force sensing transducer assembly for sensing force applied by the
Appeal 2020-003943
Application 14/591,832

5
welder at a pressing surface, Upton’s use of a lever prevents Upton from
directly3 sensing force applied at a pressing surface. See Upton ¶ 30
(“sensor 82 detects the movement or position of the control lever”). Rather,
as Appellant correctly notes, the force is applied to one portion of the lever
and sensed at a different portion of the lever. This is true even in the
pressure transducer embodiment of Figure 7 of Upton. There, Upton’s lever
would operate similarly to the extended arm of Sajna’s latch 8, in which
“angular displacement of the latch pawl 8 . . . activates or depresses the
plunger 20 to change the state of the pressure sensitive signal element.”
Sajna 4:58–64, Fig. 4; see also Upton Fig. 4. By contrast, Appellant’s
Specification discloses that “[a] force applied to the surface of finger button
4A . . . deflects the membrane 3 in the direction of the force.” Spec. 14:13–
14; Figs. 4, 5. Because the membrane is directly below the button, and
deflects in the direction of the force, the membrane (of the transducer) is
directly sensing the force. Construing the claims so that pressing on a
portion of Upton’s lever to create a force that is sensed by a sensor at a
different portion of the lever would read out the term “directly” from the
claims, which we decline to do. Claims must not be construed so broadly as
to vitiate an express limitation. See Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade
Comm., 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[T]o construe the claims in
the manner suggested by TI would read an express limitation out of the
claims. This, we will not do.”).

3 We construe the term directly in accordance with its plain and ordinary
meaning as “with nothing or no one in between,” which is consistent with
use of the term in Appellant’s Specification and arguments. Lexico.com
(accessed Dec. 22, 2020), https://www.lexico.com/definition/directly.
Appeal 2020-003943
Application 14/591,832

6
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
claims 7 and 11, which depend from claim 1.
Rejections II–V
Rejections II–V rely on the same proposed combination of Upton and
Sajna, with additional disclosure of Bland, Yoon, Strifler, Lawrence, or
Wakasugi. The Examiner does not rely on the additional disclosure of
Bland, Yoon, Strifler, Lawrence, or Wakasugi in any manner that would
remedy the conclusion set forth in the rejection based on Upton and Sajna.
We do not sustain Rejections II–V for the same reasons set forth above.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7, 11 103 Upton, Sajna 1, 7, 11
2–5, 10, 12,
13, 21–23
103 Upton, Sajna,
Bland
2–5, 10, 12,
13, 21–23
9, 15 103 Upton, Sajna,
Yoon
9, 15
24, 25 103 Upton, Sajna,
Bland, Strifler,
Lawrence
24, 25
26, 27 103 Upton, Sajna,
Wakasugi
26, 27
Overall
Outcome:
1–5, 7, 9–
13, 15, 21–
27
REVERSED