Ex Parte Feldhausen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 17, 201412035809 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2014) 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. 12/035,809 02/22/2008 Joseph E Feldhausen 840805.00039.20475D 1691 7590 04/18/2014 Jack M. Cook Quarles & Brady, LLP 411 E. Wisconsin Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53202-4497 EXAMINER MAYE, AYUB A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/18/2014 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 JOSEPH E. FELDHAUSEN, JEFFREY W. RAPPOLD, GARY A. THYSSEN, CRAIG S. KNOENER, CHRISTOPHER D. McINNIS, BRIAN A. SCHWARTZ, MICHAEL W. HOGAN, and JEFFREY P. LENZ ____________ Appeal 2012-002910 Application 12/035,809 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before GAY ANN SPAHN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2012-002910 Application 12/035,809 2 Claimed Subject Matter The claimed subject matter relates to a system for performing a variety of tasks associated with structural welding processes. See Spec. 1, para. [0002]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter. 1. A welding-type system comprising: a welding-type power source configured to deliver welding-type power for a welding-type process, wherein the welding-type power source is free of user interface devices configured to select power parameters of the welding-type process; a wire feeder connected to the welding-type power source to receive welding-type power during a welding-process; a user interface device arranged remotely from the welding-type power source and configured to receive a user- selected welding parameter; and a controller configured to receive an indication of the user-selected power parameter from the user interface device and control operation of the welding-type power source during the welding-type process based on the user-selected welding parameter received through the user interface. Rejections I. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/035,751. II. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/035,861. Appeal 2012-002910 Application 12/035,809 3 III. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/035,895. IV. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/035,774. V. Claims 1-201 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/035,830. VI. Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fihey (US 4,959,523, issued Sep. 25, 1990), Park (KR 10- 2006-0010586 A, published Feb. 2, 2006)2, and Enyedy (US 7,624,908 B2, issued Dec. 1, 2009). VII. Claims 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fihey, Park, Enyedy and Saylor (US 2007/0296223 A1, published Dec. 27, 2007). 1 The claim listing of this ground of rejection includes claims 21 and 22. Ans. 6. However, this is an apparent typographical error because only claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application. 2 Although the Examiner and Appellants refer to this reference as “LEE Y D” and “Lee Y D,” respectively, we will refer to the reference by the inventor’s last name of “Park,” as noted in the English language machine translation provided by Examiner with Office Action mailed October 7, 2009 and located in the electronic file of the application underlying this appeal. Appeal 2012-002910 Application 12/035,809 4 VIII. Claims 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fihey, Park, Enyedy and Albrecht (US 6,479,795 B1, issued Nov. 12, 2002). OPINION Rejections I-V – Obviousness-type Double Patenting Appellants do not list the Examiner’s provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections in the grounds of rejection to be reviewed on appeal section of the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 7), and present no arguments of error regarding these rejections (see App. Br. 8-21; Reply Br. 4-6). However, since Appellants state that “[t]his appeal is taken with respect to the finally-rejected, pending claims 1-20,” we have jurisdiction over all rejections involving any of claims 1-20. See App. Br. 3. Thus, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that Board did not err in sustaining a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, when the applicant failed to contest the rejection on appeal). Rejection VI - Obviousness based on Fihey, Park and Enyedy Claims 1-9 The Examiner finds that Fihey substantially discloses the subject matter of independent claim 1, but fails to teach that the “welding-type power source is free of user interface devices configured to select power parameters of the welding-type process.” Ans. 7-8; see also App. Br., Clms. App’x. To cure the deficiency of Fihey, the Examiner relied upon Enyedy to Appeal 2012-002910 Application 12/035,809 5 disclose that “the welding-type power source (102 as shown in [F]ig. 2) is free of user interface devices configured to select power parameters of the welding-type process.” See Ans. 10. The Examiner also indicates that “Enyedy’s invention shows power source with free or no interface,” and “Enyedy teaches such configuration provides means to allow the adjustments and control of welding parameters [through] the portable wire feeder. Id. (citing Enyedy, col. 2, ll. 23-30). Appellants argue that neither the schematic representation of the power source 102 in Enyedy’s Figure 2 nor Enyedy’s disclosure at column 2, lines 24-28 relied upon by the Examiner teaches or suggests a welding- type power source which is “free of user interface devices configured to select power parameters of the welding-type process.” See App. Br. 9-10. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. With respect to Enyedy’s Figure 2, we agree with Appellants that it “is a schematic diagram of a welding system that represents a welding power source 102 by way of a highly-simplified box.” App. Br. 9. Enyedy’s Figure 2 does not provide any indication as to whether welding power source 102 is “free of user interface devices configured to select power parameters of the welding-type process” as required by claim 1 because it does not show any of the details of welding power source 102. With respect to the passages in Enyedy relied upon by the Examiner (see Ans. 10 (citing Enyedy, col. 2, ll. 23-30)), we agree with Appellants that those passages of Enyedy do not describe a welding-type power source that is “free of user interface devices configured to select power parameters of the welding-type process” as required by claim 1. More particularly, Enyedy’s indicates that: Appeal 2012-002910 Application 12/035,809 6 Furthermore, because the power source is often remote from the welding operation, operator controls and other user interface elements are sometimes provided on the portable wire feeder, for instance, allowing adjustment of welding current, wire feed speed, etc. Enyedy, col. 2, ll. 24-28. This disclosure in Enyedy only makes it clear that user interface devices may sometimes be provided on the portable wire feeder. However, having user interface devices on the portable wire feeder does not mean that the power source does not also have user interface devices as suggested by Appellants. See App. Br. 10-11. Thus, the Examiner’s reliance on Enyedy’s disclosure, at column 2, lines 24-28, to teach that “the welding-type power source is free of user interface devices configured to select power parameters of the welding-type process” is misplaced. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2-9 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fihey, Park and Enyedy. Claims 16-20 Similar to claim 1, independent claim 16 is directed to “[a] welding- type system” and recites, inter alia, “a welding-type power source free of user interface devices configured to select power parameters of the welding- type power source.” App. Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner relies on the same erroneous finding as discussed supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, i.e., that Enyedy discloses a welding- type power source that is free of user interface devices that are configured to select power parameters. Ans. 10. For the rejection of claim 16, Appellants rely on the same arguments as discussed supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 15-16. Appeal 2012-002910 Application 12/035,809 7 Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 16, and claims 17-20 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fihey, Park and Enyedy. Rejections VII and VIII - Obviousness based on Fihey, Park, Enyedy, and Saylor and Obviousness based on Fihey, Park, Enyedy, and Albrecht, respectively The Examiner’s rejections of claims 10-15 rely on the same erroneous finding that Enyedy discloses a welding-type power source that is free of user interface devices that are configured to select power parameters. Ans. 10-12. The Examiner’s rejections do not rely on Saylor or Albrecht for any disclosure that would cure the deficiencies of the combination of Fihey, Park, and Enyedy. For the same reasons as discussed supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), of: claims 10, 11, and 13 as unpatentable over Fihey, Park, Enyedy and Saylor; and claims 12, 14, and 15 as unpatentable over Fihey, Park, Enyedy and Albrecht. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 on the grounds of the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. Appeal 2012-002910 Application 12/035,809 8 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation