Ex Parte Poss et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2018

13721434 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2018)

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.
13/721,434 12/20/2012 Michael G. Poss P017825-US-NP 2243
286 7590 02/23/2018
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
LEGAL STAFF
MAIL CODE 482-C22-A68
P O BOX 300
DETROIT, MI 48265-3000
EXAMINER
HOANG, MICHAEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2018 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 MICHAEL G. POSS and LANCE T. RANSOM
Appeal 2017-003141
Application 13/721,434
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDA E. HORNER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1—10 as unpatentable over the
German-English translation of Beck (hereinafter, “Beck”) (DE
10 2004 001 168 Al, pub. August 4, 2005), Appellant’s Admission as Prior
Art (hereinafter, “AAPA”), and Hosoya (US 2006/0078189 Al, pub. April
13, 2006). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY
OPERATIONS LLC, which, according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Appeal is taken from the adverse decision of the Examiner as set forth in
the Final Office Action, dated November 3, 2015 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2017-003141
Application 13/721,434
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below
and illustrates the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations
emphasized.
1. A method of laser welding a first part to a second part,
with a visually detectable feature distinguishing the first part
from the second part, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) shining a pointer laser, redirected by a bending mirror,
to form a laser beam directed toward the first and second parts to
create a laser stripe on the parts;
(b) detecting the laser stripe with a camera that is
coaxially located facing the parts and receives an image along an
axis defined by a portion of the laser beam directed toward the
parts;
(c) processing the image with a camera processor to detect
a location of the feature;
(d) automatically adjusting a laser welding system to
account for the location of the feature; and
(e) after step (d) activating a welding laser, directed
through the bending mirror, to weld the first part to the second
part.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness of Claims 1—10 over Beck, AAPA, and Hosoya
Appellant presents similar arguments for independent claims 1 and 9
and dependent claim 2 in contesting the rejection as obvious over Beck,
AAPA, and Hosoya. See Appeal Br. 5—11; Reply Br. 2—6. We select claim
1 as the representative claim, and the remaining claims stand or fall with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that “Beck discloses a method
of laser welding a first part to a second part (of workpiece 5, Fig. 1), with a
visually detectable feature distinguishing the first part from the second part,”
2
Appeal 2017-003141
Application 13/721,434
including “shining a pointer light (page 3, line 14), redirected by a bending
mirror (beam splitter 31, Fig. 1), to form a light beam directed toward the
first and second parts to create a light stripe,” and “detecting the light stripe
with a camera . . . that is coaxially located and receives an image along an
axis defined by a portion of the light beam directed towards the parts.” Final
Act. 3.
The Examiner also finds that Beck discloses
(d) automatically adjusting a laser welding system to account for
the location of the feature (see pages 3, lines 22-25) ... by
adjusting the position of the bending mirror to adjust the laser
path to account for the location of the feature (the position of the
mirror is adjusted in a way that causes the laser path to fall on the
workpieces to be welded).
Id. at 4.
Observing that “Beck shines a pointer light to create the light stripe,
while [Appellant’s] invention shines [a] pointer laser to create a laser stripe,”
the Examiner notes that AAPA (H 1, 2) discloses “that ‘existing remote
laser seam tracking sensors are available with external laser line generator
light sources,’” that form “a laser beam to create a laser stripe on the parts.”
Id. From the foregoing, the Examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious
to modify Beck by applying the teachings of AAPA to Beck, i.e.
eliminating the light source 2 of Beck, and using the laser
generator (that generates laser beam 1) as a single laser generator
to generate both the pointer laser to create a laser stripe on the
parts, and the welding laser to weld the parts together, which, in
doing so would reduce manufacturing costs,
further explaining that “Beck explicitly discloses on page 3, lines 16-17 that
‘The function of the additional light source 2 can, however, be taken over by
the laser beam 1 ...’” Id. at 5.
3
Appeal 2017-003141
Application 13/721,434
Although acknowledging that “Beck also does not disclose that the
camera faces the parts, and that the pointer laser is redirected through only a
single bending mirror to direct the laser beam toward the parts,” the
Examiner looks to Hosoya for disclosing “a method of inspecting
semiconductor wafers that uses only a single bending mirror (See Fig. 17,
the mirror is shown but not labeled, but reflects incoming light from light
source 1712 at 90 degrees to semiconductor wafer 1705),” above which “is
an image sensor (1714, See Fig. 17; para. 0066) that detects reflected light
from the semiconductor wafer (1705), so that conditions of the
semiconductor wafer can be image-processed.” Id. at 4—5.
From the foregoing, the Examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious
to further modify Beck/AAPA by applying the teachings of
Hosoya to Beck/AAPA, i.e. modifying the laser beam (1),
bending mirror (41), and camera (3) configuration of
Beck/AAPA to be similar to the configuration taught by Hosoya,
in order to provide overhead monitoring of the workpiece (5) and
to avoid splitting the laser beam when beam splitting of a laser
beam is not desired (e.g. not using beam splitters 21 and 31).
Id. at 5—6.
The Examiner further reasons that
[t]his modification of Beck/AAPA could be achieved by simply
eliminating the beam splitters (21 and 31) and rearranging the
laser source (1) so that when the laser beam emitted by laser
source (1) strikes movable mirror (41), movable mirror (41)
reflects the laser beam at 90 degrees towards the workpiece (5).
Then, placing CCD camera (3) directly above the movable mirror
(41) for the overhead monitoring of the workpiece (5).
Id. at 6.
4
Appeal 2017-003141
Application 13/721,434
In taking issue with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions,
Appellant first observes that “[cjlaim 1 recites in part detecting the laser
stripe with a camera that. . . receives an image along an axis defined by a
portion of the laser beam directed toward the parts,” while contending that
Beck “discloses a position sensitive sensor (camera) 3 that faces parallel to
the workpieces 5, not facing the part, and specifically senses light. . .
directed essentially parallel to the direction of the workpieces 5,” that “is a
completely different location and orientation of the camera 3 for detecting
the laser stripe than is recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 5.
However, Appellant is simply attacking Beck in isolation for lacking
support for teachings for which it was not cited. Nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As the Examiner explains, “an
image sensor (1714) is located above the bending mirror [in Hosoya],” so
that “light source (1712) is reflected at 90 degrees towards a semiconductor
wafer (1705), and reflected light from the semiconductor wafer (1705) is
detected by the image sensor (1714) when the reflected light transmits
through the bending mirror.”3 Ans. 4 (citing Hosoya, | 66).
Furthermore, Appellant’s contention is unavailing as it is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which merely recites receiving an
image having a portion of which is along an axis directed toward the parts.
See Appeal Br. 12, Claims App. (emphasis added). See also Figure 1 of
3 We note that the Beck translation at page 3, line 12, also discloses that
“[both camera 3 and beam splitter 31] are arranged such that the beam path
of the sensor [3 runs] coaxial with the beam path of the laser beam 1.”
5
Appeal 2017-003141
Application 13/721,434
Beck illustrating the portion of laser beam 1 being coaxially directed from
mirror 41 toward workpiece 5. As we are instructed by our reviewing court,
“limitations are not to be read into the claims from the [Specification.” In
re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In reZletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Appellant also contends the
arrangement in Beck introduces additional potential for
tolerances and misalignment to accrue to the measurement taken
by the camera 3 because the light is always bent through both the
focusing optics 42 and the mirror 41, which moves, and so does
not produce the accuracy of the method of claim 1.
Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis added).
In response, the Examiner points out that “the limitations of the
method of claim 1 do not recite any language that specify or describe the
‘accuracy’ of the method of claim 1.” Ans. 3. Furthermore, we are
instructed that “[attorney’s arguments in a brief cannot take the place of
evidence.” In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (citation
omitted); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(holding that lawyer arguments and conclusory statements that are
unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value).
Appellant further contends that the Examiner “cites avoiding splitting
of the laser beam, but Beck specifically desires to do this with the
configuration shown in the figure” and that the Examiner “cites ‘when the
splitting of the beam is not desired’ but there is no indication that it is not
desired in Beck.” Appeal Br. 7.
In response, the Examiner points out that Beck discloses “[t]he
function of the additional light source 2 can, however, be taken over by the
laser beam 1, whereby the beam splitter 21 is obsolete.” Ans. 6 (emphasis
6
Appeal 2017-003141
Application 13/721,434
added) (citing Beck page 3, lines 16—17). Appellant does not apprise us of
error.
While observing that “Hosoya is directed to inspecting a
semiconductor wafer . . . with a generic light source,” Appellant next
contends that Hosoya is “not employing a welding laser, and so is not
relevant art,” while also observing that “Hosoya does not teach or suggest
the use of a movable mirror between the semiconductor wafer and the light
source.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant also argues that the combination of Beck
and Hosoya “is just taking the system of Beck and redesigning it using
figure 1 and the description of the present application, not the teachings or
suggestions of the cited art.” Id. at 7.
However, we agree with the Examiner that “[t]he teachings of
Hosoya’s mirror are relevant because even though Hosoya does not employ
a welding laser, Hosoya uses a bending mirror . . . that reflects and transmits
light, to aid in image analysis of a workpiece.” Ans. 4. Furthermore, we
agree with the Examiner that “even though Hosoya’s mirror is not movable.
. . one of ordinary skill in the art. . . would have possessed the ingenuity to
modify Beck’s [movable] bending mirror (41), so that it can reflect and
transmit light in the manner taught by Hosoya, but also be movable.” Id.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
lover Beck, AAPA, and Hosoya. We further sustain the rejection of claims
2—10, which fall with claim 1.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection.
7
Appeal 2017-003141
Application 13/721,434
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8