11382310 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2013)

Ex Parte Peters et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 11, 2013

11382310 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte STEVEN R. PETERS and JOSEPH ALLEN DANIEL ____________________ Appeal 2010-008983 Application 11/382,310 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, GAY ANN SPAHN, and CHARLES N. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008983 Application 11/382,310 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 4, 6-13, 15-17, 19, 20 and 22-25. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims relate to an electric arc welding system where the waveform of the welding pulse is adjustable by the user. In particular, the waveform design apparatus includes a touch screen that allows the user to modify a selected waveform. Spec. 1, ll. 4-6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: l. A welding system for performing a welding operation, comprising: a switching power source having a switching inverter controlled by a pulse width modulated switching signal to provide an electrical welding signal waveform comprising a rapid succession of individual pulses that define the waveform; a programmable waveform generation system providing the pulse width modulated switching signal in accordance with a desired waveform file; and a waveform design apparatus operatively coupled with the waveform generation system, the waveform design apparatus comprising a touch screen display adapted to display waveform information associated with the desired waveform and a waveform representative of the desired waveform, and at least one touch activation indicia, the waveform design apparatus allowing a user to modify the desired waveform of the waveform generation system by touching the touch activation indicia, wherein the touch screen activation indicia allows the user to change the displayed waveform to modify the desired waveform. Appeal 2010-008983 Application 11/382,310 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Wind US 6,515,251 B1 Feb. 4, 2003 Mohr US 2007/0050311 A1 Mar. 1, 2007 REJECTIONS A. Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-17, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wind. Ans. 3. B. Claims 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wind in view of Mohr. Ans. 14. OPINION A. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-17, 19 and 20 as anticipated by Wind. The Examiner found that Wind describes a welding system with a “switching power source” and a “programmable waveform generation system” as required by claim 1. Ans. 3. Appellants do not dispute those findings or legal conclusions. Rather, Appellants assert that Wind does not describe the waveform design apparatus with a “touch screen display adapted to display waveform information and at least one touch activation indicia that allows the user to change the displayed waveform to modify the desired waveform” required by independent claims 1, 10, 16 and 19. App. Br. 12. The Examiner found that Wind describes this limitation by describing “[a]ny of a variety of instrumentation or user interface (e.g., display screen Appeal 2010-008983 Application 11/382,310 4 gauge, monitor, sensor, relay, touch-pad, or other indicators of any type, etc.)” Wind, col. 6, ll. 55-57; Final Rej. 3; Ans. 4. Appellants assert, with respect to each independent claim, that “Wind does not disclose a touch screen display nor does Wind disclose a touch screen activation indicia that allows the user to change the displayed waveform to modify the desired waveform by touching the screen.” App. Br. 12. Appellants further assert that the touch pad of Wind is an input device separate from the display and is not capable of acting as a display. Id. We agree with Appellants. A touch pad1 is understood to be a flat device which can sense where on its surface and when it is touched, used to control a cursor position or switch a device on or off. A touch screen2, on the other hand, is understood to be a computer display used to control a cursor position. This is consistent with the use of “touch screen” in the present Specification: Touch screen display 120 is operative to display information related power source 104 and/or sequence controller 200, and displays one or more touch activation indicia 400 allowing a user to modify graphical or numeric renderings of the information so as to program power source 104 or sequencer 200 by touching the touch activation indicia 400 on the display 120. In particular, buttons, scroll bars, and other numeric type touch activation indicia 400a are provided allowing a user to touch designated portions of the display screen 120 to cause changes to or modification of numeric or Boolean values associated with the programmable power source 104 and/or the sequencer 200, and graphical touch activation indicia 400b may be provided to allow the user to graphically modify a rendered 1 touch pad, DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING (2008) (retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/acbcomp/touch_pad). 2 touch screen, DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING (2008) (retrieved from: http://www.credoreference.com/entry/acbcomp/touch_screen). Appeal 2010-008983 Application 11/382,310 5 waveform or other graphical rendering, in order to program the system components 104 and/or 200. (Spec. 12, ll. 15-25). While Wind lists a variety of possible interfaces for his device, and suggests that others are possible, a touch screen is not expressly or inherently described at column 6 of Wind. The Examiner also identifies column 9, lines 50-67 of Wind (Ans. 15), which reads in part (emphasis added): As shown in FIG. 5, pivot arm 16a extends and retracts about a fulcrum or pivot mechanism 18 in response to an input signal (e.g., from a mechanical foot pedal, electric foot pedals, or other user interface (e.g. touch screen, palm button, trigger, touch-pad, keyboard, keypad, sensor, etc.). In response, Appellants correctly argue that Wind does not teach a touch screen display adapted to display waveform information and at least one touch activation indicia. Reply Br. 2. While this portion of Wind does describe a touch screen, the touch screen is producing a signal that controls the pivot arm. This does not establish that the screen is inherently capable of displaying information about the waveform as required by the independent claims. Therefore, we must reverse the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-17, 19 and 20. B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 22-25 as unpatentable over Wind in view of Mohr Neither Appellants (App. Br. 13) nor the Examiner (Ans. 14, 16) indicate that Mohr relates to a touch screen. Rather, Mohr is cited by the Examiner to show access control, a limitation added by claims 22 and 24, and a network connection, a limitation added by claims 23 and 25. As this Appeal 2010-008983 Application 11/382,310 6 does not address the elements missing in the rejection of the independent claims, we must reverse the rejections of claims 22-25 for the reasons given above with respect to claims 1 and 10. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-17, 19, 20 and 22-25 is reversed. REVERSED mls