Ex Parte Lin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201813558963 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2018) 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. 13/558,963 07/26/2012 Dechao LIN 254000/22113-0071-01 8062 13152 7590 02/27/2018 MrNp.p.<5 Wallace Rr Nnriok T T C EXAMINER 100 Pine Street ROSS, DANA P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2018 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 DECHAO LIN, BRIAN L. TOLLISON, SRIKANTH CHANDRUDU KOTTILINGAM, DAVID SCHICK, and YAN CUI Appeal 2016-005924 Application 13/558,9631 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Dechao Lin et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision (entered July 24, 2015, hereinafter “Final Act.â€) rejecting claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Wang ’315 (US 2006/0175315 Al, pub. Aug. 10, 2006) and Wang ’878 (US 2011/0132878 Al, pub. June 9, 2011). We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, in addition to the named inventors, the real party in interest is General Electric Company. Appeal Br. 1 (filed Dec. 8, 2015). Appeal 2016-005924 Application 13/558,963 INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to a hybrid welding system for joining components using hybrid welding technology. Spec. 11. Claims 1 and 15 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and recites: 1. A hybrid welding system comprising: a hybrid welding apparatus, the hybrid welding apparatus having a laser and an electric arc welder with a non-consumable electrode, wherein the laser and the electric arc welder with the non-consumable electrode are arranged and disposed to direct energy toward at least two adjacent components along a weld direction to form a shared molten pool; and a wire feeding device situated between the laser and the electric arc welder with the non-consumable electrode, the wire feeding device being arranged and disposed to feed a wire to the shared molten pool along the weld direction at a location between an area where the energy is directed from the laser and an area where the energy is directedfrom the electric arc welder with a non-consumable electrode to form a common molten pool, the common molten pool being operable to join the at least two adjacent components without splattering and at a high constant weld speed. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Wang ’315 and Wang ’878 combination fails to support the Examiner’s determination of obviousness. Appeal Br. 4—10. In particular, Appellants contend the limitation, the wire feeding device being arranged and disposed to feed a wire to the shared molten pool along the weld direction at a location between an area where the energy is directed from the laser and an area where the energy is directed from the electric 2 Appeal 2016-005924 Application 13/558,963 arc welder with a non-consumable electrode to form a common molten pool, the common molten pool being operable to join the at least two adjacent components without splattering and at a high constant weld speed, as claim 1 recites, is missing from the combination. Id. at 6—9. Appellants assert the Examiner’s obviousness determinations of claim 15 is deficient as well because claim 15 includes a similar limitation. Id. Furthermore, Appellants argue the Examiner’s reason for combining Wang ’315 and Wang ’878 in the manner claimed lacks a rational underpinning. Id. at 9. According to Appellants, the Examiner failed to substantiate Wang ’878 teaches that a skilled artisan would have known to arrange the wire feed device of Wang ’315 to deliver the wire, without splattering, to the molten pool formed between the laser and the electric arc welder with a non consumable electrode. Id. at 6—9. Because Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of the dependent claims (see id. at 10), we treat claim 1 as representative, and claims 2—20 stand or fall with claim 1. Wang ’315 discloses a hybrid welding system including the claimed “hybrid welding apparatus†that forms “a shared molten pool†and a “wire feeding device†that directs wire to the shared molten pool “to form a common molten pool,†which is operable to join at least two adjacent components. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Wang ’315 22, 23, 27, 28, Fig. 3b). This welding system, however, differs from the welding system claim 1 recites because Wang ’315 does not show its wire feeding device “is situated between the laser and electric arc welder and disposed to feed a wire to a shared molten pool between an area where laser energy is directed and an area where electric arc welder energy is directed.†Id. at 4. Nevertheless, Wang ’878 evidences a skilled artisan knew a hybrid welding apparatus 3 Appeal 2016-005924 Application 13/558,963 could take several configurations, including one where “a wire of a wire feeding device is situated between an electric arc welder and a laser beam.†Id. at 5 (citing Wang ’878 Fig. 3A); see also Wang ’878 54, 56—58, 63, 64; Ans. 6—7. A skilled artisan would have been led to arrange the hybrid welding apparatus of Wang ’315 in the manner claimed to create “a stable deposition rate without increasing required arc current and allow[] the wire to be melted by the energies of the laser and the electric arc welder.†Final Act. 5; Ans. 6—7. As a result, the Examiner concludes that the system claim 1 recites would have been obvious in view of Wang ’315 and Wang ’878. We agree. Appellants contend the Wang ’315 and Wang ’878 combination does not render obvious a hybrid welding system with the claimed wire feeding device configuration that feeds a wire “without splattering†because neither reference “teaches or suggests hybrid welding without dripping.†Appeal Br. 8. Supporting this contention, Appellants assert there must be evidence showing a wire feeding device configuration that feeds a wire to the shared molten pool between the laser and arc welder, rather than dripping the melted wire into the shared molten pool, to establish the wire feeding device configuration claim 1 recites. Id. at 6—8. Although we agree with Appellants that claim 1 requires such an arrangement, we disagree Wang ’315 and Wang ’878 fail to demonstrate a skilled artisan would have known to do so. Appellants argue to the contrary because Wang ’315 “does not teach feeding the wire itself to the molten pool, but instead teaches feeding droplets of melted wire, melted by the energy of the laser and/or electrode, to the molten pool.†Id. at 6—7. And “Wang ’878 teaches feeding droplets 4 Appeal 2016-005924 Application 13/558,963 (8) of melted wire (12) to the molten pool from a consumable electrode.†Id. at 7. Appellants’ argument, however, focuses too narrowly on what each of the references individually demonstrate rather than on what the references collectively show was known. Although Wang ’878 describes creating a shared molten pool with a hybrid welding apparatus having a laser and an electric arc welder with a consumable electrode, it also more generally teaches a hybrid welding apparatus having a laser and an electric arc welder create a shared molten pool that “can increase the deposition rate without increasing the arc current, thereby obtaining a good bead even with a wide gap,†when a wire is “fed to the molten weld pool.†Wang ’878 157. It is appropriate for the Examiner to “consider the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ,†and “[i]f a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely bars its patentability.†KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007). Wang ’878 shows skilled artisans would have known a shared molten pool formed by a laser and an arc welder, regardless of whether the welder is consumable or non-consumable, would cause the deposition rate to be increased without increasing the arc current by feeding a wire to the shared molten pool. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.†Id. No evidence or argument has been presented that modifying the hybrid welding apparatus Wang ’315 discloses to feed the wire to the shared molten pool to 5 Appeal 2016-005924 Application 13/558,963 form a common molten pool would have been beyond the skilled artisan’s skill, nor are we aware of any evidence suggesting this would be the case. Even if the prior art shows it was known to feed a wire to the shared molten pool formed by a laser and an arc welder with a non-consumable electrode, Appellants contend Wang ’878 does not show knowledge of arranging the wire feeding device to feed the wire as claim 1 recites. Appeal Br. 8—9. Specifically, Wang ’878 fails to show “the wire is fed at a location between an area where the energy is directed from the laser and an area where the energy is directed from the electric arc welder†because it illustrates the laser and arc welder directing their energies to areas that overlap. Id. at 8. This contention is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. While claim 1 recites the wire is fed to “a location between an area where the [laser] energy is directed . . . and an area where the [arc welder] energy is directed to form a common molten pool,†the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not prohibit the laser and arc weld areas from overlapping. Instead, claim 1 only requires the wire to be fed between where the laser and arc welder are directed. To the extent Appellants suggest the wire must be fed to an area that is outside and separating the arc area and laser area, we do not agree. Claim 1 is silent about the relationship between the arc area and the laser area. Our understanding is consistent with Figure 3 of the Specification, which shows feeding the wire within the “arc area,†but still at a location between an area where the laser energy is directed and an area where the arc welder energy is directed. Thus, while we agree Wang ’878 discloses an arc area and laser area that overlaps, this does not undermine the fact it also 6 Appeal 2016-005924 Application 13/558,963 teaches a known hybrid welding apparatus configuration that uses the shared molten pool to increase the deposition rate without increasing the arc current and arranges laser beam 1 to apply its energy to the front of the welding, the arc welder to apply its energy behind the laser beam 1, and feeding the wire 13 between laser beam 1 and the arc welder. Wang ’878 164, Fig. 3. In view of the foregoing, the Examiner’s reason for concluding the system claim 1 recites would have been obvious in view of Wang ’315 and Wang ’878 has a rational underpinning and is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, which Appellants have not persuasively rebutted. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 as unpatentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 as unpatentable 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation