11375788 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2013)

Ex Parte Centner

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 2013

11375788 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2013)

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. 11/375,788 03/15/2006 Robert J. Centner 15048/YOD (ITWO:0090) 2892 7590 08/29/2013 Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODE P.O. Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER JENNISON, BRIAN W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2013 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 ROBERT J. CENTNER ____________________ Appeal 2011-009568 Application 11/375,788 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JOHN C. KERINS, NEIL T. POWELL, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009568 Application 11/375,788 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 5, 11, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A collar which is attachable to an outer surface of a welding torch nozzle comprising: a heat conductive structure having an inner circumferential surface through which the outer surface of the welding torch nozzle is inserted, wherein the welding torch nozzle extends axially beyond the collar in a direction of a weld; a fluid circuit which is in heat transfer relationship with the heat conductive structure to transfer heat away from the heat conductive structure when a fluid is circulated through the circuit; and a mechanism to releasably secure the heat conductive structure to the welding torch nozzle. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bernard (US 3,803,381; iss. Apr. 9, 1974) and Fields (US 3,309,492; iss. Mar. 14, 1967); 2. Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bernard, Fields, and Carkhuff (US 3,261,962; iss. Jul. 19, 1966); Appeal 2011-009568 Application 11/375,788 3 3. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bernard, Fields, and Cranor (US 4,358,662; iss. Nov. 9, 1982); 4. Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bernard and Babcock (US 2,302,734; iss. Nov. 24, 1942); 5. Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bernard, Babcock, and Carkhuff; and 6. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bernard, Babcock, and Cranor. OPINION In the rejections of claims 1, 5, 11, and 18, the Examiner finds that Bernard discloses the majority of the claimed features, but does not disclose the welding torch nozzle extending axially beyond the cooling collar in a direction of the weld. Ans. 4-8, 11-15. The Examiner finds that Fields and Babcock each disclose a welding torch nozzle extending axially beyond a cooling collar in a direction of a weld and reasons that it would have been obvious to modify Bernard to have the welding torch nozzle extending axially beyond the cooling collar in order to increase welding precision. Ans. 8, 15. The Examiner characterizes the head member 14 in Bernard as disclosing the claimed welding torch nozzle and the liquid cooled gas nozzle 15 as disclosing the claimed cooling collar. Ans. 4, 11. Appellant argues that one skilled in the art would not have modified Bernard as proposed by the Examiner because Bernard emphasizes the importance of the gas nozzle 15 extending beyond the head member 14. App. Br. 9-11, 13-14 and Reply Br. 2-5 (citing Bernard, col. 2, l. 52 – col. 3, Appeal 2011-009568 Application 11/375,788 4 l. 9). Bernard explains that “[i]t is important to understand that in MIG welding with welding guns, the arc end of the shielding gas nozzle extends about one-fourth inch beyond the arc end of the welding current contact tip,” and, therefore, also beyond the head member 14. Bernard, col. 2, ll. 51-54. Not only would the Examiner’s proposed modification result in the arc end of the electrode 31 extending axially beyond the gas nozzle 15 in the weld direction, it would also result in the gas outlet end of the head member 14 extending axially beyond the gas nozzle in the weld direction. As explained in Bernard, “shielding gas flows through the main trunk to the head member 14 of the head assembly and out through the arrangement of ports 37 in the head member” and “[t]he gas nozzle [15] directs the shielding gas to blanket the welding arc with a continuous flow of shielding gas.” Bernard, col. 6, ll. 54-59. Based on the Examiner’s rejection, we do not see why one skilled in the art would have modified Bernard to move the gas nozzle 15 upward to a location completely beyond the ports 37 of the head member 14 when the purpose of the gas nozzle 15 is to direct shielding gas around the welding arc. Thus, we do not believe that the Examiner provides rational underpinning for the conclusion of obviousness and we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 11, and 18 as obvious in view of Bernard and Fields, the rejection of claims 1, 5, 11, and 18 as obvious in view of Bernard and Babcock, or the rejections of dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 12, 14-16, 19, and 20. Claim 9 depends from claim 5 and claims 13 and 17 depend from claim 11 and the stated bases for the rejections of these claims do not cure the deficiencies in the rejections of claims 5 and 11. We also do not sustain the rejections of claims 9, 13, and 17. Appeal 2011-009568 Application 11/375,788 5 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. REVERSED mls