11656071 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 4, 2011)

Ex Parte Paquette

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 4, 2011

11656071 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 4, 2011)

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. 11/656,071 01/22/2007 Justin Lawrence Paquette 15577/YOD (ITWO:0122) 1886 7590 04/04/2011 Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER P.O. Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER MAYE, AYUB A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte JUSTIN L. PAQUETTE1 ____________________ Appeal 2010-010075 Application 11/656,071 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KEVIN F. TURNER, and DANIEL S. SONG, Administrative Patent Judges. SONG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Illinois Tool Works Inc. (App. Br. 2). Appeal 2010-010075 Application 11/656,071 2 The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-20 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 6(b) and 134(a). The claimed invention is directed to a spark gap assembly, a welding system having a spark gap assembly, and a method of operating a spark gap assembly. The spark gap assembly includes a rod-like member and at least one toroidal member surrounding the rod-like member to define an annular gap therebetween. High frequency arcing is developed across the gap to produce a high frequency output signal (Spec. Â¶ [0009]). Illustrative Figure 3 showing an exemplary spark gap device is reproduced below. Figure 3 above is a sectional view of a spark gap device 34 including a rod-like member 54; an input toroidal member 50 surrounding the rod-like member 54 to define a gap 56 therebetween; an output toroidal member 52 surrounding the rod-like member 54 to define a gap 58 therebetween; and an insulative body 60 surrounding each of the members 50, 52 and 54 Appeal 2010-010075 Application 11/656,071 3 (Â¶Â¶ [0014], [0032] and [0033]). Input power is provided to the input toroidal member 50 via an input terminal 64 to cause arcing across the gap 56, and current is then conducted via the rod-like member 54 to cause arcing across the gap 58 (Â¶Â¶ [0033], [0036]). A high frequency output signal is extracted via an output terminal 70 and may be superimposed on power signals applied to a welding torch to strike or maintain an arc between an electrode and a workpiece (Spec. Â¶Â¶ [0026], [0036], [0037]; see also FIG. 1). Independent claim 1 is representative of the appealed claims and reads as follows (App. Br. 15, Claims App'x., emphasis added): 1. A spark gap assembly for a welding system comprising: an insulative body; a rod-like member disposed in the insulative body; an input toroidal member disposed in the insulative body and surrounding the rod-like member to define a first annular gap therebetween, and an output toroidal member disposed in the insulative body and surrounding the rod-like member to define a second annular gap therebetween; wherein when an input signal is applied to the input toroidal member, high frequency arcing occurs across the first and second annular gaps to produce a high frequency pulsed output signal at the output toroidal member. Appeal 2010-010075 Application 11/656,071 4 THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 13, 17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Cramer (US 3,564,333 issued Feb. 16, 1971). 2. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Cramer. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 14-16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Cramer in view of Murch (US 4,618,760 issued Oct. 21, 1986). We REVERSE. ISSUE The sole issue raised in the present appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Cramer discloses a spark gap assembly in which high frequency arcing occurs across an annular gap between at least one toroidal member and a rod-like member to produce a high frequency pulsed output signal. FINDING OF FACT The record supports the following finding of fact (FF) by a preponderance of the evidence: Cramer discloses an electric welder including a magnetic amplifier (Abstract). Figure 5 of Cramer is reproduced below. Appeal 2010-010075 Application 11/656,071 5 Figure 5 above is sectional view of an inductor 138 and magnetic amplifier 108 including a rod 116; a toroidal first magnetic core 470 and a toroidal second magnetic core 472 surrounding the rod 116; and an insulation sleeve 496 provided on the rod 116 (col. 2, ll. 22-24; col. 7, ll. 42- 47; col. 8., ll. 1-4). Gaps are shown between the outer surface of the sleeve 496 and the outer surface of windings 476 of the amplifier 108 (col. 7, ll. 47- 49). Appeal 2010-010075 Application 11/656,071 6 PRINCIPLES OF LAW "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). ANALYSIS Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 13, 17, 19 and 20 as anticipated by Cramer As to independent claim 1, the Examiner determines that Cramer discloses each and every limitation including a rod 116 (i.e., rod-like member), and a first magnetic core 470 (i.e., input toroidal member) and a second magnetic core 472 (i.e., output toroidal member) surrounding the rod-like member to define respective first and second annular gaps therebetween (Ans. 3, FF). The Examiner contends that when an input signal is applied to the input toroidal member, high frequency arcing occurs across the first and second annular gaps to produce a high frequency pulsed output signal at the output toroidal member (Ans. 3, 8, citing Cramer, col. 14, ll. 35-60, and col. 14-16 generally). The Appellant contends that the Examiner failed to show that the Cramer structure is capable of meeting the limitation reciting "high frequency arcing occurs across the first and second annular gaps to produce a high frequency pulsed output signal at the output toroidal member." (App. Br. 8). In this regard, the Appellant argues that the insulation sleeve (496) separates the rod (116) from any gap shown in Figure 5, and because insulative materials resist the flow of charge, the sleeve prevents the rod Appeal 2010-010075 Application 11/656,071 7 from receiving any arcing from the first and second magnetic cores 470, 472 (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2-3). The Appellant also contends that the portion of Cramer relied on by the Examiner for disclosure of the establishment of an arc discloses a welding arc, not the claimed arcing (Reply Br. 3). Initially, while the Appellant correctly points out that the insulation sleeve of Cramer physically separates the rod 116 from the first and second magnetic cores 470, 472, we find no error in the Examiner's position that these respective magnetic cores surround the rod to define a first annular gap and a second annular gap "therebetweeen," as shown in Figure 5 of Cramer. Nevertheless, we agree with the Appellant that Cramer does not disclose the pertinent limitation reciting arcing across the defined gap. Firstly, the Examiner does not identify any express disclosure in Cramer that supports the position that arcing does, in fact, occur in the gaps located directly between the amplifier windings 476 and the insulation sleeve 496 shown in Figure 5 (FF). Rather, as pointed out by the Appellant, the disclosure at columns 14-16 of Cramer relied on by the Examiner describes arcs between the electrode and the sample piece of metal which is a workpiece (see col. 14, ll. 48-49; col. 15, ll. 15-17; col. 16, ll. 5-7 and 41- 43). The Examiner also has not sufficiently explained why the Cramer magnetic amplifier would be capable of meeting the functionally-defined limitations in claim 1 with respect to arcing and producing an associated high frequency pulsed output signal. The magnetic amplifier of Cramer additionally includes the windings 476 and insulation sleeve 496 located between the toroidal members 470, 472 and rod 116. The Examiner does Appeal 2010-010075 Application 11/656,071 8 not address the Appellant's argument that the insulation sleeve would prevent arcing from the magnetic cores to the rod. Thus, the Examiner has not established that the Cramer magnetic amplifier has a structure that would inherently meet the functional limitations of claim 1. Hence, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 4 and 6-8 that ultimately depend from claim 1. Issues raised by independent claims 9 and 17, and analysis thereof, are similar to those of claim 1, and thus, we also reverse the anticipation rejection of these claims. We likewise reverse the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 10, 11, 13 and 19-20 which directly or ultimately depend from one of claims 9 or 17. Obviousness rejections As to the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 3, 5 and 12 over Cramer, the Examiner's articulated rationale does not cure the deficiencies of Cramer discussed supra with respect to independent claims 1 and 9 from which they depend. Thus, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 3, 5 and 12. The Examiner rejects claims 14-16 and 18 as being obvious over the combination of Cramer and Murch. Independent claim 14 is directed to a welding system comprising a spark gap assembly similar to that recited in claim 9. The Examiner relies on Murch for disclosing further limitations recited in claims 14-16 such as a welding gun and torch (Ans. 7). However, the Examiner's application of Murch does not remedy the deficiencies of Appeal 2010-010075 Application 11/656,071 9 Cramer. Thus, we reverse the rejection of claim 14, as well as dependent claims 15 and 16 that depend therefrom. Independent claim 17 is directed to a method of operating a spark gap assembly that comprises producing arcs between toroids and a rod-like member similar to that recited in claim 1. The Examiner relies on Murch for disclosing further limitations recited in claim 18 directed to a welding torch (Ans. 7). The Examiner's application of Murch does not remedy the deficiencies of Cramer, as discussed supra with respect to claim 1. Hence, we also reverse the rejection of claim 18, which depends from claim 17. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that Cramer discloses a spark gap assembly in which high frequency arcing occurs across an annular gap between at least one toroidal member and a rod-like member to produce a high frequency pulsed output signal. DECISION We reverse each of the Examiner's rejections. REVERSED ack