Ex Parte Achtner et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201611940200 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 11/940,200 11/14/2007 Richard Mark Achtner 20471 (ITWO:0155)SWA 7339 52145 7590 05/23/2016 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) P.O. BOX 692289 HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER MATHEW, HEMANT MATHAI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/23/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD MARK ACHTNER, BRUCE PATRICK ALBRECHT, and LEROY H. LAUER, JR. ____________ Appeal 2014-003523 Application 11/940,200 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 13–15, 20, 23–25, 27–29, 32, and 33. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as “Illinois Tool Works Inc.” (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal 2014-003523 Application 11/940,200 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants’ invention “relates generally to the field of welding systems.” (Spec. ¶ 2.) Illustrative Claim2 1. A welding system comprising: a welding device; a welding tip coupled to the welding device, wherein the welding tip is configured to support an electrode; a sensor configured to provide feedback indicative of a distance between the welding device and the work piece; and first, second, and third light sources coupled to the welding device at an offset distance away from the welding tip, wherein the first, second, and third light sources are separate and distinct light sources that emit separate and distinct light beams, wherein the first, second, and third light sources are configured to guide the welding device to a position relative to a weld location, the first light source is configured to emit a first color indicating a first distance between the welding device and a work piece based on the feedback, the second light source is configured to emit a second color indicating a second distance between the welding device and the work piece based on the feedback, and the third light source is configured to emit a third color indicating a third distance between the welding device and the work piece based on the feedback. References Buchel US 4,924,063 May 8, 1990 Boillot US 6,352,354 B1 Mar. 5, 2002 Gartner US 2004/0090667 A1 May 13, 2004 Yuk Man US 2007/0023408 A1 Feb. 1, 2007 Fisher US 7,186,950 B1 Mar. 6, 2007 Umezawa JP 2002-153445 May 28, 2002 2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix (“Claims App.”) set forth on pages 17–20 of the Appeal Brief. Appeal 2014-003523 Application 11/940,200 3 Rejections3 I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 20, 23–25, 27, 28, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yuk Man and Boillot. (Final Action 3.) II. The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yuk Man, Boillot, and Fisher. (Id. at 8.) III. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yuk Man, Boillot, and Buchel. (Id.) IV. The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yuk Man and Umezawa. (Id. at 9.) V. The Examiner rejects claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yuk Man, Umezawa, and Gartner. (Id. at 10.) ANALYSIS Rejection I Independent claim 1 is directed to a “welding system” comprising “a welding device” and “light sources coupled to the welding device.” (Claims App.) The Examiner finds Yuk Man teaches a welding system comprising a welding device (torch 2), a light assembly (laser tracking device 3), and a mount (robotic arm 5) “that is configured to couple to a torch.” (Final Action 4.) The Appellants argue that “[w]hile Yuk Man discloses that the laser tracking device 3 is attached to a robotic arm 5, Yuk Man does not disclose 3 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 13–15, 20–25, and 27–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite (see Final Action 2) has been withdrawn (see Answer 4). Appeal 2014-003523 Application 11/940,200 4 that the laser tracking device 3 is coupled to torch 2, as claimed.” (Appeal Br. 11.) We are not persuaded by this argument because Yuk Man discloses that “[p]referably, the laser tracking device 3 is mounted to a front of the head of the robotic arm [5]” and “the welding torch 2 is mounted to a rear of the head of the robotic arm 5.” (Yuk Man ¶ 27; see also Answer 9.) In other words, Yuk Man’s laser tracking device 3 is coupled to the welding torch 2 “via” robotic arm 5. (See Final Action 4.) The Appellants also argue “Yuk Man specifically states that the laser tracking device 3 includes a laser sensor, or laser camera, but Yuk Man does not teach or suggest that the laser tracking device 3 includes a laser.” (Appeal Br. 11, emphasis omitted.) We are not persuaded by this argument because the dictionary definition of a “laser tracker” is “[a] device which locks on to the reflected energy from a laser marked/designated target and defines the direction of the target relative to itself.”4 In other words, “[t]he system of Yuk Man must have a laser in order for a laser tracking device to function.” (Answer 6.) One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Yuk Man’s laser tracker 3 would include a source for emitting a laser for reflection back to the camera. And one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that this light-source component could be mounted on Yuk Man’s robotic arm 5 along with the rest of the components of the laser tracker. The Appellants further argue that “Boillot does not overcome the deficiencies of Yuk Man.” (Appeal Br. 11–12.) However, as we do not consider Yuk Man deficient for the reasons alleged by the Appellants, we are unpersuaded by this argument. 4 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/laser+tracker (last visited May 9, 2016). Appeal 2014-003523 Application 11/940,200 5 The Appellants do not argue that the Examiner otherwise errs in the rejection of independent claim 1. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Yuk Man and Boillot. Independent claim 20 is directed to a “torch lighting system” comprising “a light assembly configured to mount to a torch.” (Claims App.) The Appellants do not draw a distinction between an element being “coupled to” a torch versus an element being “configured to mount to” a torch. (See Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 2–3.) As such, the Examiner’s findings regarding a prior art light source being coupled to a torch are considered to likewise establish that this prior art light source is configured to be mounted to a torch. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 20 as unpatentable over Yuk Man and Boillot. Independent claim 23 is directed to a method involving “a torch” and light-beam-generating steps. (Claims App.) Independent claim 23 does not recite a light source or a lighting assembly (see id.), and, therefore, does not require a lighting element to be coupled and/or mounted to the torch. As such, the arguments discussed above do not correspond to limitations recited in independent claim 23; and the Appellants do not argue the Examiner otherwise errs in the rejection of independent claim 23. (See Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 2–3.) Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 23 as unpatentable over Yuk Man and Boillot. Claims 2, 4–9, 11, 13, 14, 24, 25, 27, 28, 32, and 33 each depends directly or indirectly from one of independent claims 1, 20, and 23. (See Claims App.) As these dependent claims are not argued separately (see Appeal Br. 12), they fall with independent claims 1, 20, and 23. Appeal 2014-003523 Application 11/940,200 6 Rejections II and III Claims 6 and 7 each depends directly from independent claim 1. (See Claims App.) The Appellants argue only that the additional prior art references introduced into the combination (i.e., Fisher, Buchel) do “not cure the deficiencies of Yuk Man and Boillot.” (Appeal Br. 12, 13). As we do not consider Yuk Man and/or Boillot deficient for the reasons alleged by the Appellants, we are unpersuaded by this argument. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 6 as unpatentable over Yuk Man, Boillot, and Fisher; and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 7 as unpatentable over Yuk Man, Boillot, and Buchel. Rejection IV Independent claim 15 is directed to a torch system comprising “a torch” and “a single guide light coupled to the torch.” (Claims App.) The Appellants advance arguments akin to those discussed earlier in our analysis of independent claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 14–15) and, as indicated above, we are not persuaded by these arguments. The Appellants also argue that “Umezawa does not overcome the deficiencies of Yuk Man.” (Id. at 15.) As we do not consider Yuk Man to be deficient for the reasons alleged by the Appellants, we are unpersuaded by this argument. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 15 as unpatentable over Yuk Man and Umezawa. Rejection V Claim 29 depends directly from independent claim 15. (See Claims App.) The Appellants argue only that the additional prior art reference introduced into the combination (i.e. Gartner) “does not cure the deficiencies Appeal 2014-003523 Application 11/940,200 7 of Yuk Man and Umezawa.” (Appeal Br. 15–16.) As we do not consider Yuk Man and/or Umezawa deficient for the reasons alleged by the Appellants, we are unpersuaded by this argument. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 29 as unpatentable over Yuk Man, Umezawa, and Gartner. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 13–15, 20, 23–25, 27–29, 32, and 33. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation