Ex Parte Peters et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2018

13534119 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/534,119 06/27/2012
124124 7590 06/04/2018
The Lincoln Electric Company (Pearne Cases)
Attn: Kevin M. Dunn/IP Legal
22801 Saint Clair Ave
Cleveland, OH 44117
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven Peters
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
LINC-49321 9805
EXAMINER
WARD, THOMAS JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2018 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):
ip@lincolnelectric.com
brad_spencer@ lincolnelectric. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN PETERS, JUDAH HENRY, and STEPHEN COLE
Appeal2017-007802 1
Application 13/534,1192
Technology Center 3700
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 14, 16-20 and 22-24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
December 6, 2016) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 3, 2017), and
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed March 28, 2017), and Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 19, 2016).
2 Appellants identify The Lincoln Electric Company as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-007802
Application 13/534, 119
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed "invention relates to controllers in arc welding
systems and to control methodologies for use in arc welding systems"
(Spec. ,r 1 ).
Claims 14 and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 14,
reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
14. A method for controlling an arc welding system,
comprising the steps of:
[ (a)] providing the arc welding system, wherein the arc
welding system comprises:
a welding torch comprising a contact tip; and
a welding power supply, the welding power supply
compnsmg:
a switching type power converter operatively
connected to the welding torch,
a parallel state-based controller comprising a
processor that is configured to simultaneously
control both operations of the switching type power
converter according to a welding state table and
movement of the welding torch according to a
motion control system state table;
a welding voltage sensor; and
a welding current sensor;
[ (b)] generating an electrical arc between the arc welding
system and a workpiece;
[ ( c)] controlling, by the processor of the parallel state-
based controller, the switching type power converter to generate
a welding waveform according to the welding state table, the
welding state table comprising a first plurality of sequential
control states that together regulate open circuit voltage during
touch retract starting and define a plurality of different current
levels within the welding waveform during arc welding after the
touch retract starting, wherein the step of controlling the
switching type power converter comprises sequentially
2
Appeal2017-007802
Application 13/534, 119
transitioning between control states of the welding state table
based on at least one of a welding voltage signal from the
welding voltage sensor and a welding current signal from the
welding current sensor; and
[(d)] controlling, by the processor of the parallel state-
based controller simultaneously with controlling the switching
type power converter, the movement of the welding torch
according to the motion control system state table, the motion
control system state table comprising a second plurality of
sequential control states that together control the touch retract
starting, and a contact tip to work distance (CTWD) during arc
welding, wherein the step of controlling the movement of the
welding torch comprises sequentially transitioning between
control states of the motion control system state table based on
at least one of the welding voltage signal from the welding
voltage sensor and the welding current signal from the welding
current sensor and controlling the contact tip to work distance
(CTWD) of the welding torch during arc welding, such that the
welding torch is offset from the workpiece by the CTWD to
provide a gap between the welding torch and the workpiece
during arc welding.
REJECTION
Claims 14, 16-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Fulmer et al. (US 2005/0269306 Al, pub. Dec. 8, 2005)
("Fulmer"), Nakata et al (US 4,408,114, iss. Oct. 4, 1983) ("Nakata"),
Umbaugh (US 3,727,822, iss. Apr. 17, 1973), Blankenship et al
(US 6,657,163 Bl, iss. Dec. 2, 2003) ("Blankenship"), and Lund
(US 2,857,546, iss. Oct. 21, 1958).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 14 and Dependent Claims 16-19
In rejecting independent claim 14 under§ I03(a), the Examiner cites
Fulmer as disclosing an arc welding system comprising "a welding torch";
3
Appeal2017-007802
Application 13/534, 119
"a switching type power converter"; and "a parallel state-based controller
comprising a processor" for "controlling the switching type power converter
... according to [a] welding state table," as recited in claim 14 (Final
Act. 2-3 (citing Fulmer, Figs. 4, 8)). The Examiner, however,
acknowledges that Fulmer does not disclose simultaneously controlling the
switching power converter and movement of the welding torch according to
a motion control system state table, i.e.,
a method of controlling, by the parallel state-based controller
simultaneously with controlling the switching type power
converter, movement of the welding torch according to the
motion control system state table, the motion control system state
table comprising a second plurality of sequential control states,
wherein the step of controlling the movement of the welding
torch comprises sequentially transitioning between control states
of the motion control system state table based on at least one of
the welding voltage signal from the welding voltage sensor and
the welding current signal from the welding current sensor[,]
as called for in limitation ( d) of claim 14 (id. at 3). The Examiner cites
Nakata to cure this deficiency of Fulmer (id. at 3--4 (finding that Nakata
discloses, with reference to Figure 5, "a resistance welding method" in
which a pair of workpieces are welded by "applying current though
electrode 2a, moved by piston 3[,] and pressure control device 9 controls the
pressure applied to the electrodes 2a and 2b through piston 3.")). And, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of Appellants' invention "to modify the wire
feeder 20 of Fulmer et al with the control device 9 and piston 3 taught by
Nakata et al to provide a welding process with increased reliability and
controllability" (id. at 4 ).
4
Appeal2017-007802
Application 13/534, 119
Appellants argue, and we agree, that the rejection cannot be sustained
at least because "Nakata does not disclose or suggest a processor that
perform[ s] control operations according to state tables," as called for in
claim 14 (App. Br. 15-16; see also Reply Br. 3).
Responding to Appellants' argument in the Answer, the Examiner
explains that the "Examiner has taken the position that a welding state table
comprises a series of signals that reflect the on and off state of current pulses
introduce[d] to a welding electrode," and that "[t]he waveform generator 50
of Fulmer et al was modified with the control device 9 [of Nakata] which
controls the position of an electrode to provide a controller which controls
both a current pulse and movement of the electrode" (Ans. 9). However, as
Appellants observe, Nakata's "control device 9 is merely an analog
hydraulic pressure control system for controlling the pressure applied by a
piston 3 to an electrode 2a during resistance welding" (Reply Br. 3). We
find nothing in the cited portions of Nakata, including Figure 5, on which the
Examiner relies, that discloses or suggests controlling the movement of the
electrode according to a state table.
Nakata discloses a control system for resistance welding that includes
"changing the welding pressure or current applied to the electrodes in
accordance with a reference voltage curve or a reference voltage integration
curve" (Nakata, col. 1, 11. 12-19). And Nakata discloses that "pressure
control device 9 controls the pressure on the electrodes 2a and 2b [by]
actuating the piston 3 in accordance with the signal V d in proportion to the
voltage difference" (Nakata, col. 4, 11. 45--49). But, we fail to see how, and
the Examiner has not adequately explained how, Nakata discloses or
suggests controlling movement according to a "motion control system state
5
Appeal2017-007802
Application 13/534, 119
table" as called for in claim 14. In fact, the Examiner has not pointed to any
specific element of Nakata as corresponding to the claimed "motion control
system state table."
The Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness in
the first instance. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 16-19. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("dependent claims are nonobvious if the
independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious").
Independent Claim 20 and Dependent Claims 22-24
Independent claim 20 includes language substantially identical to the
language of claim 14, and stands rejected based on the same rationale
applied with respect to claim 14 (see Final Act. 2--4). Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent
claim 20, and claims 22-24, which depend therefrom, for the same reasons
set forth above with respect to claim 14.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 14, 16-20 and 22-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
6