Ex Parte Vogel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201811350638 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 11/350,638 02/09/2006 23721 7590 06/04/2018 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. ITW20005 1428 EXAMINER MAYE,AYUBA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2018 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 and RICHARD W. BEESON Appeal2017-009236 Application 11/350,638 1 Technology Center 3700 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellants appeal from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 and 14--16. Claims 13 and 17--46 have been cancelled. See Office Communication PT0-90C, mailed Feb. 7, 2017 (entering claim amendments cancelling claims 17-19, filed Jan. 19, 2016); see also Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to the Appellants, "[ t ]he real party in interest in this appeal is Illinois Tool Works Inc." Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2017-009236 Application 11/350,638 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1 and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A welding-type power supply, comprising: a battery; a converter, having an input in electrical communication with the battery, and having a control input, and having a welding-type power output; and a controller, having a control output in electrical communication with the control input, and having at least one of a controlled voltage control module, a controlled short circuit control module and an AC weld control module in electrical communication with the control output; and a second converter, having a second input in electrical communication with the battery, wherein the battery can provide power to the second converter, and having a second control input, and having an [ AC] auxiliary output, and wherein the controller, has an [ AC] auxiliary control module with a second control output in electrical communication with the second control input. Rejections Claims 1-7, 12, and 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Albrecht (US 6,982,398 B2, issued Jan. 3, 2006) and Crandell, III (US 6,747,246 B2, issued June 8, 2004) ("Crandell"). Claims 8 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Albrecht, Crandell, and Stava et al. (US 6,818,860 Bl, issued Nov. 16, 2004) ("Stava"). Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Albrecht, Crandell, and Baer et al. (US 5,698,967, issued Dec. 16, 1997) ("Baer"). 2 Appeal2017-009236 Application 11/350,638 ANALYSIS The Appellants construe independent claims 1 and 14 to require two converters that draw power from a battery, where the second or auxiliary converter provides an AC auxiliary output. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 1-2. We agree. The Examiner relies on Albrecht to teach a first and second converter. See Final Act. 3 (citing Albrecht, col. 4, 1. 50- col. 5, 1. 10). The Examiner explains that "Albrecht ... teaches that a boost converter with buck converter configuration, meaning adding another converter, may be used in conjunction with the energy storage device (42) to deliver a power desired." Ans. 9. The Examiner finds Albrecht "fails to teach, [an] [ AC] auxiliary converter, having a second input in electrical communication with the battery, wherein the battery can provide power to the second converter and having an [AC] auxiliary output." Final Act. 4. Indeed, Albrecht teaches a single output "for welding and is applied the torch (52) and workpiece (54)." Appeal Br. 10; see, e.g., Albrecht, Fig. 2. The Examiner relies on Crandell to remedy the foregoing deficiency of Albrecht. Final Act. 4. More particularly, the Examiner finds "Crandell teaches [ AC] auxiliary converter, having a second input in electrical communication with the battery ... , wherein the battery can provide power to the second converter and having an [AC] auxiliary output." Id. (citing Crandell, Abstract, col. 3, 11. 25-36, col. 6, 11. 45---60). However, the Examiner fails to adequately explain how Crandell teaches a battery that powers more than one converter. See Appeal Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 1-2. As such, we fail to understand how the combined teachings of Albrecht and Crandell, as proffered by the Examiner, would result in the claimed subject 3 Appeal2017-009236 Application 11/350,638 matter, which requires two converters each having an input in electrical communication with the same battery, wherein the second or auxiliary converter provides an AC auxiliary output. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 14, and dependent claims 2-7, 12, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over Albrecht and Crandell. The remaining rejections based on Albrecht and Crandell in combination with Stava or Baer rely on the same findings as discussed above. See Final Act. 5---6. Each of the remaining rejections is not cured by additional findings and/or reasoning associated therewith. As such, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 8 and 11 as unpatentable over Albrecht, Crandell, and Stava, and claims 9 and 10 as unpatentable over Albrecht, Crandell, and Baer. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 and 14--16. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation