Ex Parte Vogel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2014

11412482 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2014)

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.
11/412,482 04/27/2006 Bernard J. Vogel 15521/YOD (ITWO:0110) 8154
7590 06/25/2014
Patrick S. Yoder
FLETCHER YODER
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
MAYE, AYUB A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2014 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 BERNARD J. VOGEL and KENNETH A. STANZEL
____________________

Appeal 2012-004902
Application 11/412,482
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bernard J. Vogel and Kenneth A. Stanzel (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gibbs (US 3,906,184, iss.
Sept. 16, 1975), Nielsen (US 5,689,177, iss. Nov. 18, 1997), and Holverson
(US 2004/0188405 A1, pub. Sept. 30, 2004). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-004902
Application 11/412,482

2

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method for controlling a welding operation comprising:
controlling a voltage applied to a welding electrode in an
open-loop manner, and maintaining a substantially constant
firing angle and an elevated wire feed speed during an initial
arc initiation stage of operation; and
transitioning control of the voltage applied to the welding
electrode to closed-loop voltage control, and allowing a greater
variation of the firing angle and reducing wire feed speed
following the arc initiation stage of operation.

OPINION
Each of Appellants’ independent claims 1, 9, 15, 19, and 20 requires,
inter alia, voltage control in an open-loop manner during an initial stage of
the welding operation and switching or transitioning to closed-loop voltage
control following the initial stage (upon contact with the electrode and the
workpiece). The Examiner acknowledges that Gibbs lacks this transitioning
feature. Ans. 6. The Examiner appears to rely on Holverson for a teaching
of transitioning to closed-loop voltage control. Id. at 7 (citing Holverson
paras. 6, 23, and 27).
Appellants argue, and we agree, that the paragraphs of Holverson
relied upon by the Examiner do not teach transitioning, or switching,
between closed-loop and open-loop control. Appeal Br. 8–9. Thus, the
Examiner does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject
matter of independent claims 1, 9, 15, 19, and 20. Accordingly, we do not

Appeal 2012-004902
Application 11/412,482

3

sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9, 15, 19, and 20,
and of their dependent claims 2–8, 10–14, and 16–18, as being unpatentable
over Gibbs, Nielsen, and Holverson.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is reversed.
REVERSED

hh