Ex Parte Salsich et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2013

11460446 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2013)

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.
11/460,446 07/27/2006 Anthony V. Salsich 20148 (ITWO:0310) 2007
52145 7590 09/17/2013
FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
VAN, QUANG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2013 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 ANTHONY V. SALSICH, JOSEPH C. SCHNEIDER
and JAMES F. ULRICH
____________

Appeal 2011-007674
Application 11/460,446
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP and
SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007674
Application 11/460,446
- 2 -
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-6, 8-18, 20, 21 and 25-28. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to automated control for plasma cutting
systems. Spec. 1, para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the subject matter on appeal.
1. A plasma cutting system comprising:
a housing;
a power source disposed within the housing
constructed to generate plasma cutting power;
a plasma torch actuated by a trigger and
connected to the power source;
a gas flow system constructed to receive
pressurized gas and provide a gas flow to the
plasma torch;
a proportional valve having a control to
regulate the gas flow;
a sensing device; and
a controller configured to receive a signal
from the sensing device and regulate operation of
the proportional valve, wherein the controller
regulates operation of the proportional valve by
way of controlling a drive signal sent to the
proportional valve, and wherein the controller
determines input pressure of the plasma cutting
system based on an output pressure and the drive
signal.

Appeal 2011-007674
Application 11/460,446
- 3 -
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-16, 18, 20, 21 and 25-28 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Picard and Yefchak.
2. Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Picard, Yefchak and either Couch or Brandt.

OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-16, 18, 20, 21 and 25-28
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Picard discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1, except for the controller determining input pressure of the plasma
torch system based on an output pressure and the drive signal. Ans. 4. The
Examiner relies on Yefchak to supply the element missing from Picard. Id.,
citing Yefchak, col. 3, ll. 42-49. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to determine input pressure of the plasma torch system based on
an output pressure and drive signal for use in Picard’s plasma cutting torch
control system. Ans. 4. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have done this to adjust the input pressure signal to
improve the plasma cutting process. Id.
Couch
Yefchak
Picard
Brandt
US 5,170,033
US 6,627,874 B1
US 2004/0226921 A1
US 2006/0163220 A1

Dec. 8, 1992
Sep. 30, 2003
Nov. 18, 2004
July 27, 2006
Appeal 2011-007674
Application 11/460,446
- 4 -
Appellants traverse the Examiner’s rejection by arguing that
Yefchak’s “beam current” is not a “drive signal” within the meaning of
claim 1. App. Br. 8. Appellants argue that Yefchak’s beam current is not
sent to a proportional valve as claimed. Id.
The Examiner responds by stating that Yefchak teaches that the beam
current may be used to provide feedback for process control. Ans. 6, citing
Yefchak, col. 3, ll. 47-48. According to the Examiner, Yefchak’s processor
combines the beam current signal with the pressure gauge signal to produce
an output signal to control the proportional valve, which means the beam
current indirectly sends a signal to the proportional valve. Ans. 6, citing
Yefchak, col. 3, ll. 10-54). Thus, reasons the Examiner, Yefchak's reference
reads on the claimed limitations. Id.
The instant invention uses a feedback loop and a controller to control
a proportional valve. Spec. [0008]. The Specification further discloses that
controller 13A is configured to determine an input gas pressure in the
plasma cutting system as a function of output pressure and the drive signal.
Spec. [0024], fig. 2. Thus, the Specification teaches that the drive signal is
not only an output of the controller to the proportional valve, its value is also
an input to the controller as part of the overall feedback loop of the
automated control process. Id.
Yefchak does teach that the measurement of beam current may be
used to provide feedback for process control, including the cut off of a
plasma torch. See Yefchak, col. 3, ll. 42-53. However, Yefchak uses beam
current in a mass spectrometer to measure pressure in a vapor deposition
chamber. See Yefchak, col. 1 – col. 2, ll. 1-29. The Examiner has not
explained how the beam current can simultaneously represent both output
Appeal 2011-007674
Application 11/460,446
- 5 -
pressure and the drive signal. Since the beam current is related to pressure
and the claimed invention controls the proportional valve based on both: (1)
output pressure; and (2) the drive signal, we agree with Appellants that
Yefchak’s beam current is not a drive signal sent to a proportional valve
within the meaning of claim 1.
The Examiner has not otherwise established, with evidence or
technical reasoning, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to incorporate the drive signal into the automated control
feedback loop. Thus, based on the record before us, we agree with the
Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that Yefchak discloses a drive
signal and in concluding that claim 1 is unpatentable. App. Br. 10.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claim 1.
Claim 13
As with claim 1, independent claim 13 has a limitation directed to the
drive signal serving as a control input to the controller. Clms. App’x. Thus,
the rejection of claim 13 suffers from the same infirmity as the rejection of
claim 1 and, for the same reason expressed above with respect to claim 1, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 13.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14-16, 18, 20, 21 and 25-28
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14-16, 18, 20, 21 and 25-28 all depend directly
or indirectly from claims 1 or 13. Clms. App’x. As such, the rejection of
these claims suffers from the same infirmity as the rejection of claims 1 and
13 and, for the same reason expressed above with respect to claims 1 and 13,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-12, 14-16, 18, 20, 21
and 25-28.
Appeal 2011-007674
Application 11/460,446
- 6 -
Unpatentability of Claims 4 and 17
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and claim 17 depends from claim 13.
Clms. App’x. The Examiner does not rely on Couch and/or Brandt to supply
the claim element directed to the drive signal serving as a control input to
the controller and, thus, neither reference cures the deficiency we have noted
above with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 13. Accordingly, and
for the same reasons expressed above with respect to claims 1 and 13, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 17.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6, 8-18, 20, 21 and
25-28 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls