Ex Parte Casner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2017

12895984 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2017)

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.
12/895,984 10/01/2010 Bruce A. Casner ITW 23072 8725
7590
GEORGE R. CORRIGAN
CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE
2168 COLLADAY POINT DRIVE
STOUGHTON, WI53589
EXAMINER
LAFLAME JR, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2017 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):
george.corrigan@corrigan.pro
gcorrigan@new.rr.com
kari.brekke@corrigan.pro
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUCE A. CASNER
Appeal 2016-004655
Application 12/895,984
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bruce A. Casner (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5—13, and 15—19.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant submits that the real party in interest is Illinois Tool Works, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-004655
Application 12/895,984
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below with italics, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A welding-type system including a real time clock
module, wherein the real time clock module includes a network
interface and software for implementing a network time protocol
over the network interface.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1, 5—9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Dew (US 5,850,066, issued Dec. 15. 1998).2
2) Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dew and Garnett (US 6,980,427 B2, issued Dec.
27, 2005).
3) Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dew, Garnett, and Kainec (US 2006/0169682
Al, published Aug. 3, 2006).
4) Claims 17—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dew and Lewis (US 2009/0088907 Al,
published Apr. 2, 2009).
2 The heading of the rejection in the Final Action does not include claims 12
and 15. Final Act. 2. The body of the rejection sets forth a rejection of
claim 12. Id. at 3. In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies that claim 15 was
intended to be included in this rejection. Ans. 3; see also Appeal Br. 12.
Appellants do not contest in the Reply Brief the Examiner’s inclusion of
claim 15 in this rejection. See Reply Br. 2. Arguments Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2
Appeal 2016-004655
Application 12/895,984
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Claims 1, 5 9
Appellant argues claims 1 and 5—9 as a group. Appeal Br. 10-12. We
select claim 1 as representative and claims 5—9 stand or fall with claim 1. 37
C.F.R. §41.37 (c)(l)(iv).
Appellant contends that Dew does not disclose “a welding system
with a real time clock that is updated using a network time protocol.”
Appeal Br. 10. Appellants argue that “network time protocol has an
accepted definition of a networking protocol for clock synchronization
between computer systems over packet-switched, variable-latency data
networks.” Id. at 10-11 (citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network Time
Protocol). Appellant argues that the portion of Dew cited by the Examiner
(column 2, lines 46—50) discloses a clock but not “a network time protocol
to update a real time clock in a welding system.” Id. at 11; see also Reply
Br. 2.
In response, the Examiner admits that Dew does not use the precise
language of “a network time protocol.” Ans. 4. Nonetheless, the Examiner
maintains the rejection because Dew discloses “a network time protocol
[that] synchronizes computer /clock time between multiple clocks/devices.
Dew discloses reading and synchronizing clock data (in the real time
clock/slave device) with the master device (col. 2,11. 46—50). Therefore,
Dew discloses synchronizing] computer/clock time between multiple
clocks/devices in a network time protocol.” Id. at 5. For the following
reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
3
Appeal 2016-004655
Application 12/895,984
Appellant requests that we construe “network time protocol” as “a
networking protocol for clock synchronization between computer systems
over packet-switched, variable-latency data networks” based on an excerpt
from Wikipedia attached to their Appeal Brief. Appeal Br. 10-11.
Appellants do not direct us to any portion of the Specification in support of
such a claim construction. The Specification provides that an aspect of
Appellant’s invention “is capable of updating the time over a network, such
as using NTP over the internet.” Spec. 17. In addition, the Specification
provides that the RTC or Real Time Clock “is set over a wired or wireless
network using NTP (Network Time Protocol) and an NTP server.” Id. at 11.
We note that the Specification does not specifically limit “a network time
protocol” as requiring “packet-switched, variable-latency data networks.”
While we appreciate Appellant’s reference to the Wikipedia, we note that
NTP is broadly defined elsewhere as “a protocol designed to synchronize the
clocks of computers over a network.” See www.ntp.org (last accessed
November 13, 2017).3 Based on the Specification, we determine that under
the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, one of ordinary skill in the
art would reasonably interpret “a network time protocol” as a networking
protocol “capable of updating the time over a network.”
Dew discloses “at least one weld controller acting as a slave device,
and at least one master device, such as ... a network gateway device
coupled to a common communications network.” Dew, 2:24—28. The weld
controller includes “a timer module” and “[a] communication port [that]
3 Moreover, we note that NTP version 0 was publicly released in 1985 and,
thus, is a well-known networking protocol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Time_Protocol (last accessed
November 13, 2017).
4
Appeal 2016-004655
Application 12/895,984
couples the timer module to the network.” Id. 2:28, 32—33; see also Fig. 2
(illustrating clock 49 and data network interface 42). Clock 49 “is used to
chronologically tag data . . . including] operating conditions at each weld
schedule point” and can be implemented as software. Id. 5:3—7. Clock 49
“can be read and synchronized with the master device.” Id. 2:49—
50(emphasis added).
The Examiner’s finding that Dew discloses “synchronizing]
computer/clock time between multiple clocks/devices in a network time
protocol” (Ans. 5) is supported by a preponderance of the evidence because
Dew discloses that clock 49 is synchronized with the master device over
network data interface 42. As discussed supra, Appellant argues a
construction of the term “a network time protocol” that is not supported by
the Specification. Consequently, Appellant does not apprise us of error and
we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 5—9 fall with claim 1.
Claim 12
Appellant argues that claim 12 should be allowed because the Final
Action “failed to provide any grounds of rejection” of claim 12. Appeal Br.
9. Appellant also argued that Kainec, which was applied by the Examiner in
the rejection of claim 10, does not disclose “non-volatile memory” as recited
in claim 12. Id.', see also Final Act. 4. Appellant also argues that claim 12 is
patentable for the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner responds that a rejection of claim 12 was set forth “[o]n
page 3 of the action” and further explains the rejection of claim 12 based on
Dew alone. Ans. 3. Appellant does not address claim 12 in the Reply Brief.
Reply Br. passim. We sustain the rejection of claim 12 because Appellant
does not address the rejection of claim 12 as anticipated by Dew, as stated by
5
Appeal 2016-004655
Application 12/895,984
the Examiner in the Final Rejection. To the extent that Appellant relies on
the arguments presented in connection with claim 1, for the reasons stated
above, the arguments are not persuasive.
Claim 15
Appellant argues that claim 15, which depends from claim 12, should
be allowed because the Final Action “failed to provide any grounds of
rejection” of claim 15. Appeal Br. 9. Nonetheless, Appellant argues that the
Examiner has not cited any art that teaches the limitations recited in claim 15
namely “time tagging at least one of weld data.” Id. at 10, 15 (Claims App.).
Appellant also argues that claim 15 is patentable for the same reasons as
argued for claims 1 and 12. Id. at 10, 12.
The Examiner responds that
[sjince claim 15 requires only time-tagging the same weld data as
claim 12, claim 15 is rejected under the same explanation given in the
action and clarified here. Dew discloses a real time clock [Q49, the
clock tags data that includes weld data such as number of welds,
current, and voltage.
Ans. 3.
In reply, Appellant does not address claim 15. See Reply Br. 2.
We sustain the rejection of claim 15 because the Examiner’s finding
that Dew discloses “time tagging at least one of weld data” is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Dew, 5:3—8. To the extent that
Appellant relies on the arguments presented in connection with claims 1 or
12, for the reasons stated above, the arguments are not persuasive.
Rejections 2, 3, and 4
Appellant argues that dependent claims 2, 10-13, and 16—19 are
patentable for the same reasons argued in connection with independent
6
Appeal 2016-004655
Application 12/895,984
claims 1 and 12. Appeal Br. 12. We sustain the rejection of claims 2, 10—
13, and 16—19 for the same reasons stated for claims 1 and 12.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5—13, and 15—19 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7