Ex Parte Uecker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2013

10907916 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/907,916 04/20/2005 James L. Uecker 15199/YOD (ITWO:0299) 4916
52145 7590 09/16/2013
FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
DANG, KET D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2013 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 JAMES L. UECKER, TODD E. HOLVERSON, and
JEREMY D. OVERESCH
____________________

Appeal 2011-008215
Application 10/907,916
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, HYUN J. JUNG, and ADAM V. FLOYD,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008215
Application 10/907,916

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James L. Uecker et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A welding system comprising:
at least two metal inert gas (MIG) welders configured
to perform a cooperative pulsed MIG welding process; and
at least one communications link connecting the at
least two MIG welders;
wherein each MIG welder is configured to deliver at
least one of subordination commands and superiority
commands to the other MIG welder to synchronize the
cooperative pulsed MIG welding process.
Evidence
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Toth
Ditschun
Hillen
Houston
US 4,430,551
US 4,806,735
US 6,697,701 B2
US 6,855,912 B2
Feb. 7, 1984
Feb. 21, 1989
Feb. 24, 2004
Feb. 15, 2005
Rejections
Appellants request our review of the following rejections:
I. Claims 1, 2, 7, and 10-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ditschun and Hillen.
II. Claims 3-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ditschun, Hillen, and Houston.
Appeal 2011-008215
Application 10/907,916

3
III. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ditschun, Hillen, and Toth.
OPINION
Rejection I
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 10-15
The issue presented is whether Ditschun and Hillen render obvious a
welding system comprising at least two welders each configured to deliver at
least one of subordination commands and superiority commands to the other
welder to synchronize the pulsed welding process.
The Examiner acknowledges that Ditschun does not disclose each of
the two welders being configured to deliver at least one of subordination
commands and superiority commands to the other welder to synchronize the
cooperative pulsed welding process. Ans. 8. The Examiner finds that
Hillen teaches each welder being configured to deliver at least one of
subordination commands and superiority commands to the other welder to
synchronize a cooperative pulsed welding process. Ans. 8-9 (citing Hillen,
fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 33-37).
We agree with Appellants that Ditschun does not disclose the slave
power supply 28 exhibiting control over the master power supply 24. See
App. Br. 8. We also agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings
with respect to the teachings of Hillen are incorrect. See App. Br. 9-10. In
the embodiment of figure 2 cited by the Examiner, Hillen describes a central
controller (i.e., a cell or robot controller 110) that controls a plurality of
welders based in part on feedback signals from the welders. See Hillen,
col. 4, ll. 45-47, 64-67; col. 5, ll. 9-13, 15-18. However, Hillen does not
disclose that the welders are configured to deliver subordination or
Appeal 2011-008215
Application 10/907,916

4
superiority commands to other welders. Rather, all control commands
appear to be initiated from the communications controller 114 of the cell
controller 110.
In responding to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner additionally
alludes to the teachings of Hillen’s figure 4 and figure 7 embodiments.
Ans. 14-15. For essentially the reasons set forth on pages 4-5 of Appellants’
Reply Brief, the Examiner’s reliance on the additional embodiments of
Hillen’s figure 4 (depicting control of welders by controller 284 for tandem
operation) and figure 7 (depicting a cell controller comprising a controller
520 configured to control an active welder and a standby welder by, upon
detection of a fault or error in the active welder, delivering switchover
commands to the standby welder to direct the standby welder to become the
active welder in the process) is unavailing to make up for the deficiencies in
Hillen’s figure 2 embodiment. See Hillen, col. 5, ll. 46-64; col. 7, ll. 13-26.
Consequently, the Examiner’s implicit conclusion that the proposed
modification of Ditschun “with the features . . . of [Hillen] in order to enable
control and communications over cables that are coupled between the
systems” (Ans. 9) renders obvious the subject matter of claim 1 ostensibly is
predicated on erroneous findings with respect to the teachings of Hillen.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of its dependent
claims 2, 7, and 10-15 as unpatentable over Ditschun and Hillen.
Claims 16-23
The Examiner finds that Ditschun discloses a welder comprising, in
relevant part, a controller 38 configured to control operation of a second
welder 12 during a first phase of the pulsed welding process and to be
controlled by the second welder 12 during a second phase of the pulsed
Appeal 2011-008215
Application 10/907,916

5
welding process. Ans. 5 (citing Ditschun, col. 3, ll. 47-50; col. 4, ll. 54-60;
fig. 1). Appellants contest this finding. App. Br. 10-11.
The portions of Ditschun cited by the Examiner do not support the
Examiner’s finding that controller 38 is controlled by the second welder
(slave head 12) during a second phase of the pulsed welding process.
Further, for the reasons discussed above, the teachings of Hillen relied upon
by the Examiner do not make up for the deficiency in the findings with
respect to Ditschun.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 and its
dependent claims 17-23 as unpatentable over Ditschun and Hillen, because
the rejection is premised on an unsupported finding.
Claims 24-29
Independent claim 24 requires a welding system comprising an array
of welding power sources, wherein each welding power source is configured
to communicate a standby command to an adjacent welding power source
when entering a peak phase and to receive a similar standby command from
the adjacent welding power source when the adjacent welding power source
enters a peak phase.
The Examiner finds that Ditschun discloses an array of welding power
sources (master and slave power sources) and that Ditschun’s master power
source is configured to communicate a standby command to an adjacent
welding power source (the slave power source). Ans. 7. However, this
finding that one of the power sources is configured to communicate a
standby command to an adjacent power source does not satisfy the claim
requirement that each of the welding power sources of the array be so
configured, as the Examiner’s findings suggest. The portions of Ditschun
Appeal 2011-008215
Application 10/907,916

6
cited by the Examiner (Ans. 7) do not disclose the master power source
being configured to receive a similar standby command from the slave
power source, and thus do not address the claim requirement that each
welding power source also be configured to receive a similar standby
command from the adjacent welding power source. Further, for the reasons
discussed above, the teachings of Hillen relied upon by the Examiner do not
make up for the deficiency in the findings with respect to Ditschun.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 24 and of its dependent
claims 25-29 as unpatentable over Ditschun and Hillen.
Rejection II
The teachings of Houston relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting
claims 3-6 and 9, which depend from claim 1, do not overcome the
deficiencies in the Examiner’s findings with respect to Ditschun and Hillen.
Specifically, as pointed out by Appellants, Houston does not appear to
disclose exchange of subordination or superiority commands between the
controllers of adjacent welders; rather, the switching described by Houston
is a switching of the master power supply followed by a switching of the
slave power supply for a given welder. See App. Br. 14-15; Houston,
col. 11, ll. 26-28 (disclosing that “two separate electrodes used in tandem are
driven separately with the parameters and synchronizing signals being
directed through a network which can include an internet link”).
Moreover, even if the switching communication from master to slave
taught by Houston were applied to Ditschun to synchronize the master and
slave welders so that the slave follows the master, it is not apparent how that
would result in the subject matter of claim 1, from which claims 3-6 and 9
depend.
Appeal 2011-008215
Application 10/907,916

7
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3-6 and 9 as
unpatentable over Ditschun, Hillen, and Houston.
Rejection III
The Examiner’s application of the additional teachings of Toth in
rejecting claim 8, which depends from claim 1, do not overcome the
deficiencies of the Examiner’s findings with respect to Ditschun and Hillen.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over
Ditschun, Hillen, and Toth.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-29 is reversed.
REVERSED

hh