Ex Parte Reynolds et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 3, 201311275077 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/275,077 12/08/2005 Jon O. Reynolds 14132.61 (ITWO:0292-1) 1106 52145 7590 01/04/2013 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) P.O. BOX 692289 HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER JENNISON, BRIAN W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2013 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 JON O. REYNOLDS, BRUCE ALBRECHT, ERIC YOUNG, AND MICHAEL W. HOGAN ________________ Appeal 2010-011397 Application 11/275,077 Technology Center 3700 ________________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011397 Application 11/275,077 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Jon O. Reynolds, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a method and apparatus of communicating control signals to a welding power source from a remote location. Spec. [2]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A welding system comprising: a power source having a controller to regulate welding operation; an electrode holder configured to hold a consumable wire in relative proximity to a workpiece such that a welding arc is created between the consumable wire and the workpiece; a contactorless wire feeder connecting the power source to the electrode holder and constructed to deliver welding- type power from the power source to the electrode holder. The Examiner relies upon the following evidence: Moerke US 3,496,328 Feb. 17, 1970 Davis US 4,561,059 Dec. 24, 1985 Gilliland US 5,063,282 Nov. 5, 1991 Hayes US 6,114,657 Sep. 5, 2000 Fujino JP 61137675 A Jun. 25, 1986 Aso JP 05104248 A Apr. 27, 1993 Mäkimaa EP 0 575 082 A3 Dec. 22, 1993 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Mar. 22, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 10, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jun. 9, 2010). Appeal 2010-011397 Application 11/275,077 3 Claims 1-5, 11-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mäkimaa and Hayes. Claims 1-5, 11-14, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mäkimaa, Hayes, and Moerke. Claims 6, 7, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mäkimaa, Hayes, and Davis. Claims 6, 7, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mäkimaa, Hayes, Moerke, and Davis. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mäkimaa, Hayes, and Gilliland. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mäkimaa, Hayes, Moerke, and Gilliland. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mäkimaa, Hayes, and Aso. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mäkimaa, Hayes, Moerke, and Aso. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mäkimaa, Hayes, and Fujino. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mäkimaa, Hayes, Moerke, and Fujino. ISSUES The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether Hayes discloses a contactorless wire feeder. Appeal 2010-011397 Application 11/275,077 4 FINDINGS OF FACT We find that the findings of fact, which appear in the Analysis below, are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office). ANALYSIS Appellants argue claims 1-20 as a group (App. Br. 7, Reply Br. 1). We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims 2-20 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claim 1 requires a “contactorless wire feeder,” such that a separate contactor or switch assembly is not needed in the wire feeder to close the welding circuit. See Spec. [26]. With respect to all of the rejections of claims 1-20 at issue, the Examiner contends that Hayes discloses a contactorless wire feeder in Hayes at col. 5, l. 60 - col. 6, l. 2 (Ans. 24-26). Hayes, at the cited passage, recites: If the trigger is on, the system is activated at step 203. Activation includes turning on at least one of the source of power and wire feeder. In the preferred embodiment the source of power is turned on by activating a relay or contactor (for example in the wire feeder), and the wire feeder is turned on and will feed wire at the rates set by controller 102. In other embodiments only one of the source of power and wire feeder is turned on. Turning on means electronically enabling the output, providing a command, isolating the input power, opening a switch, etc. Hayes, col. 5, l. 60 - col. 6, l. 2. Appeal 2010-011397 Application 11/275,077 5 We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the passage from Hayes cited by the Examiner does not expressly or inherently disclose a “contactorless wire feeder” as asserted. We have considered each of the contentions set forth by the Examiner, but conclude substantial evidence does not support the finding of obviousness based on the Hayes passage. Accordingly, because each of the rejections was premised on the Examiner’s application of Hayes, we find that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 1-20 under any of the rejections at issue. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of: claims 1-5, 11-15, and 17-20 over Mäkimaa and Hayes; claims 1-5, 11-1, and 17-20 over Mäkimaa, Hayes, and Moerke; claims 6, 7, and 16 over Mäkimaa, Hayes, and Davis; claims 6, 7, and 16 over Mäkimaa, Hayes, Moerke, and Davis; claims 8-10 over Mäkimaa, Hayes, and Gilliland; claims 8-10 over Mäkimaa, Hayes, Moerke, and Gilliland; claim 15 over Mäkimaa, Hayes, and Aso; claim 15 over Mäkimaa, Hayes, Moerke, and Aso; claim 15 over Mäkimaa, Hayes, and Fujino; and claim 15 over Mäkimaa, Hayes, Moerke, and Fujino. DECISION We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20. REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation