Ex Parte VogelDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 8, 201712946748 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2017) 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. 12/946,748 11/15/2010 Bernard J. Vogel 23162/YOD (ITWO:0462) 1555 52145 7590 11/13/2017 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) P.O. BOX 692289 HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER SIMS III, JAMES F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/13/2017 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docket@fyiplaw.com sinclair@fyiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BERNARD J. VOGEL Appeal 2015-005553 Application 12/946,748 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’ rejections of claims 13—18, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “The real party in interest is Illinois Tool Works Inc.” (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal 2015-005553 Application 12/946,748 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant’s invention “relates generally to welding systems, and, more particularly to welding power supplies with regulated background power supplies.” (Spec. 12.) Illustrative Claim 13. A welding power supply, comprising: a main power supply rated for an average load requirement and comprising a first transformer configured to supply output current to welding electrodes for use in a welding operation when the power output requirement does not exceed a predetermined threshold and to not supply output current to the welding electrodes when the power output requirement exceeds the predetermined threshold; and a background power supply comprising a second transformer configured to charge an energy storage device, wherein the power capability of the second transformer is below the average load requirement for which the main power supply is rated and the background power supply is configured to supply a regulated power output to the welding electrodes for use in the welding operation when the power output requirement exceeds the predetermined threshold and to not supply the regulated power output to the welding electrodes when the power output requirement does not exceed the predetermined threshold. References Vogel Terayama Heraly Eldridge Luo US 5,218,182 US 5,645,741 US 6,034,350 US 2008/0061045 A1 US 2011/0049115 A1 June 8, 1993 July 8, 1997 Mar. 7, 2000 Mar. 13, 2008 Mar. 3,2011 2 Appeal 2015-005553 Application 12/946,748 Rejections I. The Examiner rejects claims 13, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Terayama, Luo, and Eldridge. (Final Action 2.) II. The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Terayama, Luo, Eldridge, and Vogel. (Id. at 4.) III. The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Terayama, Eldridge, and Heraly. (Id. at 5.) IV. The Examiner rejects claims 17, 18, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Terayama, Vogel, and Eldridge. (Id.) ANALYSIS Claims 13 and 17 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 14—16, 18, 21, and 22) depending therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claims 13 and 17 recite a “welding power supply” comprising two power supplies, namely a “main power supply” and a “background power supply.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claims 13 and 17 additionally recite limitations relating to when current/power is supplied by the respective power supplies based upon a power “requirement” and a predetermined “threshold.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner seems to collectively view these limitations as a “control scheme” for enabling and disabling the two claimed power supplies. (See e.g., Final Action 3, 7.) The Examiner’s rejections all rely upon 1) a finding that Terayama discloses a welding power supply with two power sources; 2) a finding that Terayama does not teach enabling and disabling its power sources based upon a power requirement and a predetermined threshold; 3) a finding that 3 Appeal 2015-005553 Application 12/946,748 Eldridge teaches a control scheme for two power supplies involving a power requirement and a predetermined threshold; and 4) a determination that it would have been obvious to modify Terayama’s welding power supply “with the control scheme of Eldridge to efficiently control the power supplies during a welding operation.” (Final Action 3, 7.) The Appellant argues that the Examiner does not sufficiently establish that the proposed modification to Terayama’s welding power supply would have been obvious. (See Appeal Br. 10, 13—14; see also Reply Br. 4—5.) We are persuaded by the Appellant’s position because, as discussed below, we are unable to ascertain from the record whether the relevant claim limitations would read on the Examiner’s proposed incorporation of Eldridge’s control scheme into Terayama’s welding power supply. Terayama discloses a welding power supply having two power sources, namely a main power source and an auxiliary power source. (See Terayama, col. 3,11. 42—50.) As noted by the Appellant, Terayama’s auxiliary power source is only used “at the beginning of the welding operation” for “arc activation or start of the arc process.” (Appeal Br. 13.) Specifically, Terayama’s auxiliary power source, but not its main power source, is turned on in response to a torch-activation signal to generate a relatively small arc. (See Terayama, col. 6,11. 60-63, col. 7,11. 3—7, 63—65.) Once this relatively small arc is generated, the auxiliary power source is turned off, the main power source is turned on, and the welding operation proceeds. (See id., col. 8,11. 5—13.) Eldridge, like Terayama, discloses two power sources which can be used in a welding operation. (See Eldridge 1 8.) However, whereas Terayama is interested in arc activation at the very beginning of the welding 4 Appeal 2015-005553 Application 12/946,748 operation, Eldridge is concerned with “energy requirements” that are “too demanding to be satisfied” by a single commercially-available power source. {Id. 15.) Presumably, these energy demands would occur throughout a welding operation (e.g., after arc activation). In any event, as noted by the Appellant, Eldridge’s first and second power sources are used “together to share a current load.” (Appeal Br. 10.) Eldridge’s control scheme entails introducing the second power source “after the first power source reaches a selected threshold of output.” (Eldridge 125.) Eldridge’s control scheme also entails interdependent control of the two power sources once the second power source is introduced. (See id. 126.) The Examiner maintains that Terayama discloses on-off switches for its two power sources, and that these switches “could easily allow manipulation of the power by the operator.” (Answer 10.) Insofar as this is meant to imply that Terayama’s auxiliary power source could or would be switched on by an operator to “share the load” with Terayama’s main power source during a welding operation, as taught by Eldridge, we need a more detailed account as to when and how this switching should occur. Without these details, we are unable to ascertain from the record whether the modified version of Terayama’s welding power supply would meet the control-scheme-related limitations recited in independent claims 13 and 17.2 2 For example, independent claim 13 recites that the main power supply has a component configured “to not supply output current to the welding electrodes when the power output requirement exceeds the predetermined threshold,” and independent claim 17 recites that the background power supply is configured to produce an output “at a level equal to the difference between the average load requirement and the power requirement of the welding operation.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) 5 Appeal 2015-005553 Application 12/946,748 Furthermore, the Examiner’s articulated motivation for modifying Terayama’s welding power supply is “to efficiently control the power supplies during a welding operation.” (Final Action 3, 7.) However, we see no technical reasoning in the record as to why the manipulation of certain switches would result in efficient control of Terayama’s two power sources while they are sharing the load. As noted by the Appellant, Terayama’s auxiliary power source strategically “has a smaller power capacity” than that of its main power source (Appeal Br. 13; see also Terayama, col. 3,11. 27— 50); and, according to Eldridge, interdependent control is necessary to assure that plural power sources “share[] the current requirements to the desired extent” (Eldridge 17). The Examiner does not offer us any meaningful insight as to whether Terayama’s power sources would be interdependently controlled when sharing the load, nor does the Examiner provide us with a finding that efficient control can be achieved without such interdependence. The Examiner does maintain that “Eldridge teaches additional structure that could be combined with the main power supply and background power supply of Terayama.” (Final Action 3.) Insofar as this is meant to imply that efficient interdependent control of Terayama’s two power sources could or would be attained by the addition of certain elements taught by Eldridge, the Examiner does not adequately identify what these elements are and where they would be placed in Terayama’s welding power supply. As indicated above, the rejections at hand (i.e., Rejections I—IV) all rely upon the Examiner’s proposed incorporation of Eldridge’s control scheme into Terayama’s welding power supply; and the Examiner fails to sufficiently describe the welding power supply created by this incorporation. 6 Appeal 2015-005553 Application 12/946,748 The Examiner’s further findings and determinations with respect to the other applied prior art references do not compensate for this shortcoming. Specifically, the record reflects that Luo and Vogel are relied upon to teach a “second” and/or “separate” transformer for the background power supply (Final Action 3,6), and that Heraly is relied upon to teach a control circuit allowing a welder to select a “welding process.” {Id. at 5.) Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Terayama, Luo, and Eldridge (Rejection I); we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Terayama, Luo, Eldridge, and Vogel (Rejection II); we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Terayama, Eldridge, and Heraly (Rejection III); and we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17, 18, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Terayama, Vogel, and Eldridge (Rejection IV). DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 13—18, 21, and 22. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation