Ex Parte Vogel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2018

13839235 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/839,235 03/15/2013
23721 7590 04/23/2018
GEORGE R. CORRIGAN
CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE
2168 COLLADAY POINT DRIVE
STOUGHTON, WI 53589
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bernard J. Vogel
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
ITW60901 9892
EXAMINER
MAYE,AYUBA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/23/2018 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):
george.corrigan@corrigan.pro
gcorrigan@new.rr.com
kari.brekke@corrigan.pro
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERNARD J. VOGEL
Appeal2017-004830
Application 13/839,235
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JILL D. HILL, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a welding-type power supply. Claims 1
and 14 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A welding-type power supply comprising:
Appeal2017-004830
Application 13/839,235
a controller, having a preregulator control output and an
output converter control output;
a preregulator disposed to receive a range of inputs
voltages and to receive the preregulator control output, and to
provide a preregulator output signal, wherein the preregulator
includes a plurality of stacked boost circuits;
a preregulator bus, disposed to receive the preregulator
output signal; and
an output converter, disposed to receive the preregulator
bus and to receive the output converter control output, and to
provide a welding type power output, wherein the output
converter includes at least one stacked inverter circuit.
EVIDENCE
The evidence relied upon by the Examiner is:
Geissler
Thommes
Kooken
US 6,815,639 B2
US 7,049,546 B2
US 8,785,816 B2
REJECTIONS
Nov. 9, 2004
May 23, 2006
July 22, 2014
Claims 1-22 are provisionally rejected under nonstatutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Application No.
14/535,994 and Kooken.
Claims 1-11and14--21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Geissler and Kooken.
Claims 12, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Geissler, Kooken, and Thommes.
2
Appeal2017-004830
Application 13/839,235
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
OPINION
We commonly determine that it is premature to address provisional
nonstatutory double patenting rejections on appeal. Ex parte Moncla, No.
2009-006448, 3 (BP AI June 22, 2010). However, here we note that
Appellant filed a terminal disclaimer on February 10, 2016. The Examiner's
Advisory Action responding to Appellant's response of the same date does
not acknowledge or address the filing of the terminal disclaimer. Nor does
the Examiner's Answer acknowledge or address the filing of the terminal
disclaimer. This appears to be an oversight by the Examiner. Because the
Examiner provides no reasoning why the terminal disclaimer is inadequate,
and we see none, we determine that the nonstatutory double patenting
rejection is moot.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant argues that the Examiner ignores an express definition in
the Specification of the term "stacked inverter circuit" and that the cited
prior art does not teach or suggest a "stacked inverter circuit" under this
definition. Appeal Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 2. In particular, the Specification
states: "Stacked inverter circuit, as used herein, is two inverter circuits with
the primary side switches connected in series." Id. (citing Spec. i-f 47).
The Examiner argues that because the "claim does not explicitly
define [the] type of at least one stacked inverter circuit, ... Geissler, meets
the claim limitation. Ans. 12.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office gives claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, reading
3
Appeal2017-004830
Application 13/839,235
claim language in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner's rejection of the definition in the
Specification is clear error. As the Examiner has not identified how the
prior art teaches a "stacked inverter circuit" consistent with how that term is
expressly defined in the Specification, we do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22 under nonstatutory double
patenting is moot.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.
REVERSED
4