Ex Parte Jaeger

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2017

12479124 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 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.
09005.004 1829
EXAMINER
JENNISON, BRIAN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/479,124 06/05/2009
76275 7590 09/19/2017
Fildes & Outland, P.C.
20916 Mack Avenue, Suite 2
Grosse Pointe Woods, MI 48236
Thomas Jaeger
09/19/2017 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 THOMAS JAEGER1
Appeal 2016-001516
Application 12/479,124
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BRETT C. MARTIN and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—7 and 9—18. Br. 5. Claim 8 has
been canceled. See Amendment dated June 24, 2011. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to a connection system for a
robotic MIG torch assembly, and more particularly to a quick release
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Illinois Tool Works Inc.
See Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-001516
Application 12/479,124
gooseneck locking mechanism for a robotic GMAW torch.” Spec. 1:9—12.
Claims 1 and 6 are independent. Claim 1, illustrative of the claims on
appeal, is reproduced below:
1. A gooseneck locking mechanism for a robotic GMAW
torch having a torch body and a disconnectable gooseneck, said
locking mechanism comprising:
a connector receiver disposed and formed in said torch
body, said connector receiver including longitudinal ends and a
passageway extending between said longitudinal ends;
a radially indexing feature disposed and formed in said
passageway and including a linear protrusion extending axially
along said passageway in said torch body;
an elongated connector mountable on a proximal end of
said gooseneck;
said elongated connector including a cooperable radially
indexing feature indexable with said radially indexing feature;
a detent for axially aligning and releasably joining said
connector receiver and said elongated connector;
wherein said radially indexing feature disposed in said
passageway and said cooperable radially indexing feature of
said elongated connector axially radially align said gooseneck
relative to said torch body, and said detent axially aligns and
releasably secures said elongated connector in said connector
receiver for quick release.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Hyland
Pratt
US 4,029,110
US 4,049,943
US 4,403,136
US 4,645,901
US 6,540,426 B2
US 6,713,711 B2
US 6,720,528 B1
US 2004/0124631 A1
US 2006/0037945 A1
US 2008/0001395 A1
June 14, 1977
Sept. 20, 1977
Sept. 6, 1983
Feb. 24, 1987
Apr. 1, 2003
Mar. 30, 2004
Apr. 13, 2004
July 1,2004
Feb. 23, 2006
Jan 3, 2008
Colman
Scholz
Cloyd
Conway
Matiash
Kardeis
Schneider
Kouda
2
Appeal 2016-001516
Application 12/479,124
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1—4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Scholz, Schneider, Cloyd, and Hyland.
Claims 1—3, 6, 9-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Colman, Pratt, Schneider, and Hyland.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Colman, Pratt, Schneider, Hyland, and Cloyd.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Colman, Pratt, Schneider, Hyland, and Conway.
Claims 14—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Colman, Pratt, Schneider, Hyland, and Kouda.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Colman, Pratt, Schneider, Hyland, Kouda, Kardeis, and Matiash.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1—4 and 18
as unpatentable over Scholz, Schneider, Cloyd, and Hyland
Appellant presents an argument for claim 1 and subsequently
contends that claims 2—4 and 18 are allowable due to their dependency from
claim 1. Br 12—17. Accordingly, we select claim 1 for review with claims
2—4 and 18 standing or falling with claim 1. See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner primarily relies on the teachings of Scholz but
acknowledges that, “Scholz fails to disclose regarding claim 1, a radially
indexing feature including a generally linear protrusion.” Final Act. 3. The
Examiner initially relies on Schneider for disclosing “a radially indexing
feature 100.” Final Act. 3 (annotating Schneider’s Fig. 3). The Examiner
3
Appeal 2016-001516
Application 12/479,124
also relies on Hyland for disclosing “a key 236, on a cylindrical nozzle-like
device which is inserted into a keyway 23 8” ‘ for preventing rotational
movement.” Final Act. 4 (emphasis added) (referencing Hyland 5:30-45).
In addressing Schneider, Appellant contends, “the twist-lock quick
connect mechanism of Schneider including channel 86 and pin 100 does not
radially index the consumable assembly 38 and does not include a linear
protrusion.”2 Br. 14. Appellant contends that Schneider instead teaches
“axial” indexing because the bayonet-style quick-lock mechanism of
Schneider is to position the electrode “in a proper axial position relative to
the torch body.” Br. 14. The Examiner does not dispute Appellant’s
argument regarding Schneider, but instead states, “Hyland is relied upon for
the disclosure of a radially indexing feature” and again references Hyland’s
key 236. Ans. 11; see also Final Act. 4 supra.
It is not disputed that Hyland teaches, “[rjotational movement. . .
about the longitudinal axis ... is prevented by arranging ... a key 236
which may be inserted into a keyway 238.” Hyland 5:39-43; see also Br. 15
(discussing Hyland and its prevention of rotational movement). However,
Appellant contends that Hyland is lacking because “the key 236 of Hyland is
a tab rather than an axially extending linear protrusion” and as such, “key
236 of Hyland is not a linear protrusion that extends axially along a
passageway as claim 1 requires.” Br. 15.
The Examiner explains, Hyland’s “key has a certain length and is
therefore elongated in an axial direction.” Ans. 11—12. As support, the
2 Regarding Appellant’s contention that Schneider does not disclose “a
linear protrusion,” the Examiner relies on Hyland for rendering obvious a
“longitudinally extending keyway” with mating key. Final Act. 4.
4
Appeal 2016-001516
Application 12/479,124
Examiner further notes, “[t]he claims do not require any specific length of
the ‘elongated’ portion.” Ans. 12. Appellant does not indicate how the
Examiner might be in error on this point.3
Accordingly, Appellant is not persuasive that the Examiner erred in
concluding claims 1—4 and 18 would have been obvious over Scholz,
Schneider, Cloyd, and Hyland. We sustain their rejection.
The rejection of claims 1—3, 6, 9—13, and 18
as unpatentable over Colman, Pratt, Schneider, and Hyland
Appellant argues independent claim 1 separately from independent
claim 6, however, the arguments presented for each are similar. Br. 17—24.
Appellant contends that claims 2, 3, 9-13, and 18 are allowable due to their
dependency from either claim 1 or claim 6. Br. 24—36. We select claim 1
for review with claims 2, 3, 6, 9-13, and 18 standing or falling with claim 1.
The Examiner relies on Coleman for teachings similar to those
disclosed in Scholz above. Final Act. 5. The Examiner relies on the
additional references to Schneider and Hyland for the same teachings.4
Final Act. 5—6. Appellant addresses the Examiner’s reliance on Schneider
3 Regarding Hyland’s key not extending “axially along a passageway,” the
Examiner relies on Scholz (“see Figure 2”) for disclosing a passageway.
Final Act. 2. As indicated above, Hyland is relied on for rendering obvious
“the longitudinally extending keyway cooperable with a key for preventing
rotational movement.” Final Act. 4. Appellant does not explain how it
would not “have been obvious to adapt Scholz in view of Hyland to provide
the longitudinally extending keyway cooperable with a key for preventing
rotational movement” as stated. Final Act. 4 (referencing Hyland 5:30-45).
4 However, with respect to claim 6, the Examiner additionally relies on
Coleman (as well as Hyland) for disclosing a key that “clearly projects
radially and has a length, making it extend longitudinally.” Ans. 12; see
also Ans. 13.
5
Appeal 2016-001516
Application 12/479,124
and Hyland and repeats arguments similar to those previously presented. Br.
18—20. Appellant’s repeat of similar arguments is not persuasive. Br. 18—
20. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 6, 9-13, and 18 as
being obvious over Colman, Pratt, Schneider, and Hyland.
The remaining rejections
Appellant’s contentions regarding remaining claims 4, 5, 7, and 14—17
are based on their dependency from either claim 1 or claim 6. Br. 26—28.
Accordingly, lacking any reason explaining how the Examiner’s additional
reliance on the additionally cited references might be in error, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 7, and 14—17.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—7 and 9—18 are 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).
AFFIRMED
6