Ex Parte Ott et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 3, 2017

13158005 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 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.
13/158,005 06/10/2011 Brian Lee Ott 60004/YOD (ITWO:0495) 8413
52145 7590 03/07/2017
FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket@fyiplaw.com
sinclair@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN LEE OTT and
JEREMY DANIEL OVERESCH
Appeal 2015-003149
Application 13/158,005
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, 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 a final
rejection of claims 1—20. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to welding systems,
and, more particularly, to a welding wire feeder with a magnetic rotational
Appeal 2015-003149
Application 13/158,005
speed sensor.” Spec. 12. Claims 1,10, and 16 are independent claims.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A welding wire feeder system comprising:
a wire drive configured to contact a welding wire and to drive
the welding wire towards a welding application;
a gear assembly coupled to the wire drive and configured to
force rotation of the wire drive during operation;
an electric motor assembly coupled to the gear assembly and
configured to force rotation of the gear assembly during operation;
and
a magnetic rotational sensor system configured to measure a
parameter indicative of a wire feed speed of the welding wire feeder
system.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Bergstedt US 5,742,160 April 21, 1998
Kramer US 5,973,291 Oct. 26, 1999
Ishikawa US 6,401,766 B1 June 11, 2002
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kramer, Ishikawa, and Bergstedt.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue independent claims 1,10, and 16 together (App. Br.
6—8); claims 5, 10, and 16 together (App. Br. 9—10); claims 6, 12, and 18
together (App. Br. 10-12); and, claims 8 and 11 together (App. Br. 12—13).
We select claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 for review with the remaining claims
standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1
Claim 1 includes the limitation of a “magnetic rotational sensor
system” that measures a “parameter indicative of a wire feed speed” of a
2
Appeal 2015-003149
Application 13/158,005
welding wire system. The Examiner states that the primary reference to
“Kramer does not show” such a sensor system, and instead relies on
Ishikawa and Bergstedt for such teaching. Final Act. 2—3. Ishikawa, as per
the Examiner, shows a wire feeder having a magnetic rotational sensor
system while Bergstedt also teaches a magnetic rotational sensor and further,
that it is known to provide a circuit for the same in order to calculate a
position, an acceleration, or a change in speed of the rotatable member.
Final Act. 3. Thereafter, the Examiner provides two reasons why it would
have been obvious to combine Kramer with the overlapping teachings of
Ishikawa and Bergstedt. Final Act. 3. The first is because “such measured
speed or angular position would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to
further determine the speed of the wire feed driven by the rotating gears.”
Final Act. 3. The other is because, as a matter of routine experimentation, it
would have been obvious “to further adjust and control the desired wire feed
speed with an integrated circuit or processor well known in the art.” Final
Act. 3^4.
Appellants do not dispute that the primary reference to Kramer is in
the welding wire feeder art. However, regarding Ishikawa and Bergstedt,
Appellants state, “neither reference is directed towards any type of welding
apparatus or application, much less a welding wire feeder system.” App. Br.
7. In other words, as per Appellants, “Kramer, Ishikawa, and Bergstedt are
directed towards completely different and unrelated systems,” and as such,
one skilled in the art “would certainly not look to Ishikawa and/or Bergstedt
to modify Kramer.” App. Br. 7.
The Examiner interprets Appellants’ statements as a non-analogous
art argument. Ans. 4. The Examiner explains that Ishikawa and Bergstedt
3
Appeal 2015-003149
Application 13/158,005
are not relied on for being in the welding wire art, but instead for teaching
“known magnetic sensors.” Ans. 4. In other words, as per the Examiner,
“such teachings are not only suitable for modifying the wire feeder of
Kramer but are deemed to be also reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the application was concerned, which is to measure the
speed of a wire feeder.” Ans. 4. Such a combination (i.e., Kramer,
Ishikawa, and Bergstedt) “is based on known prior art that further improves
a similar device such as a wire feeding system” and also “is deemed to meet
and yield predictable results of the claimed invention.” Ans. 4—5.
Appellants do not explain how the teachings of Ishikawa and
Bergstedt fail to address the measurement problem with which Appellants’
were concerned. See Ans. 4. In short, we are not persuaded that one skilled
in the art would have ignored Ishikawa’s and Bergstedt’s solution when
confronting a similar problem.1 To summarize, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ contention that one skilled in the art, as per Appellants, “would
certainly not look to Ishikawa and/or Bergstedt to modify Kramer.” App.
Br. 7.
Appellants also contend that the Examiner failed to show “objective
evidence of the requisite motivation or suggestion to modify or combine
Kramer, Ishikawa, and/or Bergstedt to reach the present claims.” App. Br.
7; see also App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2. Appellants’ application of this
“objective evidence” standard is not the applicable standard. Instead, as
1 “A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different
field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the
matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an
inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
4
Appeal 2015-003149
Application 13/158,005
Appellants acknowledge and paraphrase, the standard is to provide “some
articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support a conclusion of
obviousness; a conclusory statement will not suffice.” App. Br. 5 (citations
omitted). Appellants further state, “this analysis should be made explicit.”
App. Br. 7 (citations omitted). Appellants do not explain how the statements
made by the Examiner (and discussed above) fail to provide articulated
reasoning or somehow lack rational underpinning. We do not understand the
Examiner’s proposed modification to suggest bodily incorporation of the
specific magnets and magnetic sensors of Ishikawa and/or Bergstedt into the
welding wire feed system of Kramer. Rather, the Examiner properly took
into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007); see also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”) In other words, based on the
teachings in Ishikawa and Bergstedt regarding the use of magnetic rotational
sensors, we find the Examiner’s determination that one having ordinary skill
in the art would have found it obvious to apply this technique to the wire
feed system of Kramer is based on rational underpinning and is supported
adequately by the teachings of the prior art.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s reasons to
combine are faulty, such that reversal of the Examiner’s rejection is
warranted. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,10, and 16
(along with any non-argued dependent claims) as being obvious over
Kramer, Ishikawa, and Bergstedt.
5
Appeal 2015-003149
Application 13/158,005
Claim 5
Claim 5 ultimately depends from claim 1 and includes the limitation
of a processor that calculates wire feed speed “based upon the angular
position of the idler gear and configuration parameters of the welding wire
feeder system.”2 Appellants contend, “the [EJxaminer failed to individually
address” this claim during prosecution and that the cited references “do not
teach or suggest the calculation of a wire feed speed based on” “angular
position” and “configuration parameters.” App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3.
Although claim 5 was not explicitly identified by the Examiner in the
Final Office Action, the Examiner stated generally, “it would also have been
obvious to further determine parameters including the gear ratios or the
diameter of the welding wire as a matter of routine experimentations . . . that
are known to affect the feed wire speed.” Final Act. 3. On this point,
Ishikawa states “[t]he rotating speed of the feed gears 108,109 is measured
by the result of detection by the magnetic sensor 117, so that a feed of
binding wire ‘b’ can be known by the rotating speed of the feed gears 108,
109.” Ishikawa 4:49-53; see also Ishikawa Figs. 2, 3. Hence, based on this
teaching in Ishikawa, Appellants’ contention regarding the lack of a
calculation in the references of a wire feed speed involving angular
2 Regarding the limitation “configuration parameters of the welding wire
feeder system,” Appellants’ Specification provides guidance that such
“configuration parameters” include “a gear ratio” and “a diameter of a drive
roll.” Spec. 131. It is thus understood that this claim limitation
encompasses calculating wire feed speed based upon knowing the “diameter
of a drive roll” (from which its circumference can be calculated), “a gear
ratio” between the drive and idler gears, or the “angular position of the idler
gear.”
6
Appeal 2015-003149
Application 13/158,005
positioning or configuration parameters is not persuasive. Accordingly, we
do not fault the Examiner for generally addressing certain of the dependent
claims together, rather than explicitly addressing claim 5 as Appellants
argue.3
Thereafter, Appellants repeat the argument addressed above that
neither Ishikawa nor Bergstedt “is directed towards any type of welding
apparatus or application, much less a welding wire feeder system.” App. Br.
9; Reply 3. Appellants also repeat the argument that the Examiner did not
provide “any objective evidence” of the required motivation. App. Br. 10;
see also Reply Br. 4. Neither argument is persuasive for reasons previously
explained.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 10, and
16 (along with any non-argued dependent claim), as being obvious over
Kramer, Ishikawa, and Bergstedt.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and more specifically identifies the
“configuration parameters” as comprising “a gear ratio” between the motor,
drive and idler gears, or “the diameter of a drive roll” or “a diameter of the
welding wire.” Appellants repeat the contention that the references “do not
teach or suggest the calculation of a wire feed speed based on” “angular
position” and the “configuration parameters” which are now specifically
recited. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3. However, as indicated supra, Ishikawa
discusses the respective diameters of feed gears 108 and 109 (“which are the
3 See also Ans. 5 for the Examiner’s statements regarding “claim recitations
regarding the processor that calculates the wire feed speed based on the
configuration parameters that include a gear ratio” and the like.
7
Appeal 2015-003149
Application 13/158,005
same”), along with the motor’s reduction gear (coupled to feed gear 108).
Ishikawa 4:10-11; 4:30-34. Appellants thus do not explain how Ishikawa
fails to address such “configuration parameters” as gear ratios between
“motor, drive and idler gears,” or their diameters as claimed.
Appellants also address the Examiner’s failure to “individually”
address this claim recitation and further that the Examiner did not provide
“any objective evidence” supporting the stated motivation. App. Br. 11; see
also Reply Br. 4. Neither argument is persuasive for reasons previously
explained.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 12, and
18 as being obvious over Kramer, Ishikawa, and Bergstedt.
Claim 8
Claim 8 ultimately depends from claim 1 and includes the limitation
“the magnetic sensor is coupled to a mounting plate assembled
independently of the electric motor assembly” (emphasis added). The
Examiner finds that Figure 3 of Ishikawa illustrates where magnetic sensor
117 “is assembled independently of the motor assembly.” Ans. 5.
Appellants challenge this finding by the Examiner stating that
Ishikawa’s Figure 3 shows magnetic sensor 117 “that is mounted directly to
an electric motor 110.” Reply Br. 5. Presuming, arguendo, that Ishikawa’s
sensor 117 and motor 110 are illustrated as being mounted directly to each
other, claim 8 is silent regarding their method of mounting, and instead
recites that the two are “assembled independently” of each other. Ishikawa
identifies and describes items 117 and 110 separately, and Ishikawa also
illustrates them as different devices spaced apart from each other. See, e.g.,
Ishikawa 4:13; 4:41; Fig. 3. As such, Appellants do not explain how the
8
Appeal 2015-003149
Application 13/158,005
Examiner erred in finding that Ishikawa discloses these items “assembled
independently” as claimed.
Appellants further state that the cited references “do not teach or
suggest” this limitation, that the Examiner did not address this claim
“individually,” and that “the three references cited by the [Ejxaminer are
completely unrelated to one another.” App. Br. 12—13; see also Reply Br.
4—5. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive for reasons previously
expressed (including Appellants’ argument regarding the Examiner’s lack of
“objective evidence” regarding motivation, see Reply Br. 5). Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 11 as being obvious
over Kramer, Ishikawa, and Bergstedt.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 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
9