Ex Parte Christopher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2014

11502865 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/502,865 08/10/2006 Mark Richard Christopher 20354/YOD (ITWO:0142) 9105
7590 11/21/2014
Patrick S. Yoder
FLETCHER YODER
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
MATHEW, HEMANT MATHAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2014 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 MARK RICHARD CHRISTOPHER and
GERALD PETER PIECHOWSKI
____________________

Appeal 2012-005281
Application 11/502,865
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-005281
Application 11/502,865

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mark Richard Christopher and Gerald Peter Piechowski
(“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 4–
7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 21–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Smith (US 3,898,419; iss. Aug. 5, 1975) and Weinger (US
6,012,622; iss. Jan. 11, 2000). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to “a technique for advancing a wire electrode in a
welding gun.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for adjusting drive pressure on a continuous
welding electrode wire comprising:
a torch handle;
a pair of rollers disposed in the torch handle and
configured to capture the continuous welding electrode wire
therebetween;
a pressure adjustment assembly coupled to one of the
rollers and configured to permit operator adjustment of a force
urging the coupled roller towards the other roller;
an operator indicator providing feedback to a welding
operator of which of a plurality of preset force settings for the
pressure adjustment assembly is currently set, wherein the
operator indicator includes indicia visible from outside the
torch handle, wherein the indicia include markings on an
external surface of the torch handle and a marking on the
pressure adjustment assembly; and
one or more stops for the pressure adjustment assembly
corresponding to at least one of the preset force settings,
wherein the one or more stops are provided on the torch handle
and interface mechanically with an extension of the pressure
adjustment assembly to limit travel of the assembly between
predetermined limits to less than one turn.
Appeal 2012-005281
Application 11/502,865

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Smith substantially discloses the subject
matter of the rejected claims but does not disclose, inter alia, “wherein the
one or more stops are provided on the torch handle and interface
mechanically with an extension of the pressure adjustment assembly to limit
travel of the assembly between predetermined limits to less than one turn.”
Ans. 5–7. The Examiner further finds that “Weinger discloses an improved
fastener driving tool” that “comprises an incrementer (34) which comprises
a detent (36), that cooperates with a non-rotating polygonal surface (38). . . .
having the effect of dividing each full rotation of the knob (32) into eight
discrete and repeatable settings (stops).” Id. at 7–8 (citing Weinger, col. 6,
ll. 52–65, Figs. 3, and 4). The Examiner concludes that “it would have been
obvious . . . to modify the apparatus and method of Smith by employing the
teachings of Weinger in order to allow the hand held torch knob to have
numbers or other indicia which may be used in conjunction with the knob so
as to assist in the selection of repeatable discrete positions to control the
pressure around the thickness of the welding wire or the capability to use
different welding wires.” Id. at 8.
The Appellants argue that “Smith and Weinger do not disclose
limiting travel of the pressure adjustment assembly or adjustment member to
less than one turn.” App. Br. 8. In particular, the Appellants argue that
“Smith does not appear to limit the travel of the thumb screw 112 to less
than one turn” and “Weinger does nothing to cure this deficiency of Smith”
because “nothing appears to limit the rotation of the knob 32 [of Weinger] to
less than one turn” and “Weinger appears to allow continuous rotation of the
Appeal 2012-005281
Application 11/502,865

4
knob 32 and certainly more than one full rotation or turn of the knob 32.”
Id. at 8–9 (citing Weinger, col. 6, ll. 52–61, Fig. 4).
The Examiner responds that “Weinger discloses the polygonal surface
(38) is octagonal, having the effect of dividing each full rotation of the knob
(32) into eight discrete and repeatable settings (stops).” Ans. 10 (citing
Weinger, col. 6, ll. 52–65, Figs. 3, and 4). The Examiner states that “a
single full rotation of the knob is split into eight discrete settings (which are
less than one turn) thereby allowing limits to be reached within a single turn
or full rotation of the knob.” Id. The Appellants reply that “simply
indicating one or more particular settings within less than one turn of the
knob 32, as disclosed in Weinger, does not constitute limiting travel of the
knob 32 to less than one turn.” Reply Br. 3.
The Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. Independent claims 1, 10,
and 17 each require one or more stops provided on a torch handle and
interfaced mechanically with an extension of a pressure adjustment assembly
or adjustment member to limit travel of the assembly or member between
predetermined limits to less than one turn. The Examiner’s original
rejection does not directly address this limitation of the independent claims.
Final Action 4–5 and Ans. 4–5. Also, Weinger does not support the
Examiner’s response that “a single full rotation of the knob is split into eight
discrete settings (which are less than one turn) thereby allowing limits to be
reached within a single turn or full rotation of the knob.” See Ans. 10.
Instead, Weinger teaches that rotating knob 32 moves drive probe 28, that
the range of movement is “a limited range . . . defined by threads 30
disposed upon an upper end of the drive probe 28,” that the “range of
movement is divided into a discrete number of selectable positions by an
Appeal 2012-005281
Application 11/502,865

5
incrementer 34,” and that the incrementer 34 has the effect of “dividing each
full rotation of the knob 32 into eight discrete and repeatable settings.”
Weinger, col. 6, ll. 43–57. Weinger does not teach that the discrete and
repeatable settings allow limits to be reached within a single rotation of the
knob. See Ans. 10.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 10, and 17 and their dependent claims 4–7, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 21–
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith and Weinger.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4–7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and
21–29 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

rvb