Ex Parte Stava et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2014

11114683 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ELLIOTT K. STAVA and WILLIAM T. MATTHEWS
___________

Appeal 2012-005123
Application 11/114,683
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Elliott K. Stava and William T. Matthews (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a): (1) claims 1, 2, 13–15, 18–21, 24, 25, 33–36, 39–42, 47, 48, 51,
52, and 55 as unpatentable over Geissler (US 6,329,636 B1; iss. Dec. 11,
2001), Leisner (US 2002/0190044 A1; pub. Dec. 19, 2002), Barton (US
6,636,776 B1; iss. Oct. 21, 2003), Hsu (US 6,002,104; iss. Dec. 14, 1999),
and Tong (US 6,376,802 B1; iss. Apr. 23, 2002); and (2) claims 26–28, 31
and 32 as unpatentable over Geissler, Leisner, Barton, Hsu, Tong and
Samodell (US 6,570,129 B1; iss. May 27, 2003). Claims 3–12, 16, 17, 22,
Appeal 2012-005123
Application 11/114,683

2
23, 29, 30, 37, 38, 43–46, 49, 50, 53, 54, and 56 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to the field of electric arc welding
and more particularly to a . . . selector device for use in electric arc welders
of the type controlled by waveform profile signals and polarity signals.”
Spec. 1, ll. 2–4; Fig. 1. Claims 1, 41, 47, 51, and 55 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. An electric arc welder for creating an arc welding
process between an electrode and a workpiece, said welder
comprising:
a preregulator having a first DC signal as an input and a
regulated second DC signal as an output;
an unregulated isolation inverter to convert said regulated
second DC signal into a DC power signal;
a weld control stage for converting said DC power signal
into a welding signal;
a selector device storing several selectable welding
processes, each having a corresponding polarity;
an auxiliary electrode selector module storing several
selectable electrode types and diameters; and
a controller for causing said weld control stage to
conform said welding signal into a waveform to provide a
welding process between said electrode and said workpiece,
said controller having an output control signal regulated to
produce a selected waveform or waveforms and a polarity of
said selected waveform or waveforms based upon a selectable
first output from said selector device and a selectable auxiliary
output from said auxiliary electrode selector module,
wherein said selectable first output includes one of said
several selectable stored welding processes and said
corresponding polarity, and
Appeal 2012-005123
Application 11/114,683

3
wherein said selectable auxiliary output includes at least
one of said several selectable electrode types and at least one of
said several selectable diameters.

ANALYSIS

Obviousness over Geissler, Leisner, Barton, Hsu, and Tong – Claims 1, 2,
13–15, 18–21, 24, 25, 33–36, 39–42, 47, 48, 51, 52, and 55
Each of independent claims 1, 41, 47, and 55 calls for an electric arc
welder including “an auxiliary electrode selector module storing several
selectable electrode types and diameters.” Appeal Br. 19, 21–23, Clms.
App. Independent claim 51 similarly calls for a selector device including
“an auxiliary electrode selector module storing several selectable electrode
types and diameters.” Appeal Br. 23, Clms. App. The Examiner found that
Geissler discloses a preregulator 102 (fig. 1)
having a first DC signal as an input (abstract) and a
regulated second DC signal as an output (col. 3,
lines 35-40), an unregulated isolation inverter
(abstract) to convert regulated second DC signal
into a DC power signal (col. 4, lines 7-13); a weld
control stage 105 (fig. 1) for converting said DC
power signal into a welding signal (col. 5, lines 36-
43).
Ans. 5. The Examiner found that Geissler fails to disclose, “an auxiliary
electrode selector module storing several selectable electrode types and
diameters, wherein said selectable auxiliary output includes at least one of
said several selectable electrode types and at least one of said several
selectable diameters.” Id. The Examiner found that Barton discloses “an
auxiliary electrode selector module 370 (fig. 3) storing several selectable
electrode types and diameters, wherein said selectable auxiliary output 370
(fig. 3) includes at least one of said several selectable electrode types and at
Appeal 2012-005123
Application 11/114,683

4
least one of said several selectable diameters (col. 7, lines 54- col. 8, lines
65).” Ans. 7. The Examiner concluded
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Geissler in view of
Leisner et al. with an auxiliary electrode selector
module storing several selectable electrode types
and diameters, wherein said selectable auxiliary
output includes at least one of said several
selectable electrode types and at least one of said
several selectable diameters of Barton et al. in
order to provide the process of documenting
welding procedure qualification can be automated
resulting in time savings for the welding engineer
and decreasing documentation errors.
Id. at 8.1
Appellants contend that
[t]he claims of the present invention, referenced by
the Office, require that an auxiliary electrode
selector module store several selectable electrode
types and diameters that output a signal to create a
particular welding arc (emphasis added). Barton
discloses no such auxiliary electrode selector
module that stores such selections for welding
procedures. The Examiner believes that the
inventory & distribution system 370 is equivalent
to the auxiliary electrode selector module as
presently claimed. However, the inventory &
distribution system 370 of Barton is not concerned
about the formation of the arc itself, but rather
about stock inventory. “After the user selects the
welding procedure to be utilized, the inventory &
distribution system 370 can be updated in order to

1 The Examiner relied on Leisner for disclosing “a selector device.” See
Ans. 6, 12. The Examiner relied on Hsu for disclosing “a controller” and
Tong for disclosing “a polarity of [the] selected waveform or waveforms.”
Id. at 8–10, 13–14.
Appeal 2012-005123
Application 11/114,683

5
accommodate resources (e.g., consumables and/or
other materials) used by the selected welding
procedure” (col. 8, lines 23-26). Barton continues
to state that the inventory & distribution system
370 is used to determine whether a particular
consumable was stocked in inventory (emphasis
added) (col. 8, lines 42-47). The inventory &
distribution system 370 is not used to create a
specific arc with a corresponding waveform, but is
used merely to determine whether a particular
consumable electrode is available for inventory
purposes (emphasis added). Once again, Barton
fails to teach the selecting aspect of the claimed
invention (emphasis added).
Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 6–7
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. Barton discloses that
[t]he inventory & distribution system 370 . . . can
be operatively coupled to the welding system 310
via the local network 360. The welding system
310 can search the inventory & distribution system
370 to determine, for example, whether
consumable(s) for potentially suitable welding
procedure(s) is stocked within the industrial
environment.
Barton, col. 7, l. 61 – col. 8, l. 1 (emphasis added); see also id. at col. 8, ll.
42–47. Barton further discloses that (1) “[a]fter the user selects the welding
procedure to be utilized, the inventory & distribution system 370 can be
updated in order to accommodate resources (e.g., consumables and/or other
materials) used by the selected welding procedure” (Barton, col. 8, ll. 23–
26); and (2) “the welding system 310 can communicate information
regarding the welding procedure selected by the engineer and/or
consumable(s) associated with the selected welding procedure to the
inventory & distribution system 370 . . . in order to accommodate resources
Appeal 2012-005123
Application 11/114,683

6
(e.g., consumables and/or other materials) used by the selected welding
procedure” (Barton, col. 8, ll. 54–60).
Although we acknowledge that the inventory & distribution system
370 of Barton stores consumable electrodes (see Ans. 14), we note that the
claims call for “an auxiliary electrode selector module.” See Appeal Br. 19,
21–23, Clms. App. (emphasis added). Barton fails to disclose that the
inventory & distribution system 370 selects the consumable electrode. We
agree with Appellants that the inventory & distribution system 370 of Barton
“merely [determines] whether a particular consumable electrode [i.e., a
consumable already selected by the engineer and/or associated with the
selected welding procedure] is available for inventory purposes [i.e., is
stored in inventory].” See Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 7. As such, the
Examiner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the
inventory & distribution system 370 of Barton constitutes the “auxiliary
electrode selector module,” called for in the claims. Consequently, the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case that the combined
teachings of Geissler, Leisner, Barton, Hsu, and Tong render obvious the
electric arc welder or selector device called for in respective independent
claims 1, 41, 47, 51, and 55.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 41, 47, 51, and 55 and their respective dependent
claims 2, 13–15, 18–21, 24, 25, 33–36, 39, 40, 42, 48, and 52 as
unpatentable over Geissler, Leisner, Barton, Hsu, and Tong cannot be
sustained.

Appeal 2012-005123
Application 11/114,683

7
Obviousness over Geissler, Leisner, Barton, Hsu, Tong and Samodell –
Claims 26–28, 31 and 32
Claims 26–28, 31, and 32 depend either directly or indirectly from
independent claim 1. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 26–28, 31, and 32
as unpatentable over Geissler, Leisner, Barton, Hsu, Tong and Samodell (see
Ans. 10–11) is based on the same unsupported findings discussed above
with respect to independent claim 1. The addition of Samodell does not
remedy the deficiencies of Barton discussed above. Accordingly, for similar
reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26–28, 31, and
32 as unpatentable over Geissler, Leisner, Barton, Hsu, Tong and Samodell.

DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 13–
15, 18–21, 24–28, 31–36, 39–42, 47, 48, 51, 52, and 55.

REVERSED

mls