Ex Parte Wiryadinata

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 9, 2017

13178168 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2017)

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.
13/178,168 07/07/2011 Indra Budiman Wiryadinata 60129/YOD (ITWO:0505) 7885
52145 7590 05/11/2017
FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
NORTON, JOHN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/11/2017 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 INDRA BUDIMAN WIRYADINATA
Appeal 2015-006726
Application 13/178,168
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, LEE L. STEPINA, and SEAN P. O’HANLON,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1—10. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2015-006726
Application 13/178,168
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below.
1. A system, comprising:
a welding power supply having a wireless
communication receiver; and
a wireless sensor module integrated with an article of
clothing, wherein the wireless sensor module comprises:
a motion sensor or a position sensor coupled to a
processor of the wireless sensor module and configured to
detect a defined motion or defined position of a welding
operator;
memory circuitry coupled to the processor and
configured to store the defined motion or the defined position
and an adjustment of an operating parameter of the welding
power supply corresponding to the defined motion or the
defined position; and
a wireless communication device coupled to the
processor and configured to transmit the adjustment of the
operating parameter to the wireless communication receiver of
the welding power supply.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Karakas (US 2007/0187378 Al, pub. Aug. 16, 2007).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Karakas and Lepeltier (US 6,337,458 Bl, iss. Jan. 8, 2002).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Karakas and Blankenship (US 6,624,388 Bl, iss. Sept. 23, 2003).
Claims 1—7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Karakas and David (US 6,516,289 B2, iss. Feb. 4, 2003).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Karakas, David, and Lepeltier.
2
Appeal 2015-006726
Application 13/178,168
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Karakas, David, and Blankenship.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—7 and 10
as unpatentable over Karakas
The Examiner found that Karakas discloses a welding power supply,
substantially as claimed including motion or position sensors 14, 16 coupled
to a processor (controller 20) and a wired communication system. Final Act.
2. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to use a
wireless setup as a well-known communication system that eliminates the
need for a physical wire connection. Id. The Examiner also determined that
“it would have been obvious ... to move the sensors of Karakas from the
welding head to a glove as a matter of design since no advantage is seen in
choosing one location over the other.” Id.
We agree with Appellant that a skilled artisan would not have been
motivated to integrate sensors 14, 16 on welding head 4 of Karakas into a
wireless sensor module on an article of clothing as a matter of mere design
choice. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues persuasively that integration of
motion and position sensors into an article of clothing, as recited in claim 1,
allows more finely-tuned adjustment of welding parameters based on the
motion or position of a welding operator as detected by the sensors based on
the direct movement of the operator’s body. Id. This arrangement allows
the adjustment of welding parameters with the movement of a foot or gloved
hand while holding the torch steady as when a user holds a welding torch in
one hand and wears a glove with sensors on the other hand to enable
continuous, uninterrupted use of the welding torch. Id. at 9.
3
Appeal 2015-006726
Application 13/178,168
Claim 1 recites that the motion and position sensor are “configured to
detect a defined motion or defined position of a welding operator” versus a
welding torch, as taught by Karakas. Therefore, the claims do recite features
of this configuration contrary to the Examiner’s findings. See Ans. 8—9. In
addition, Appellant discloses that this configuration allows wireless sensor
modules 32 to detect various movements of the welding operator and adjust
a welding parameter associated with that movement, allowing customization
of control for different welding operators. Spec. 19, 20, 22—26.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1—7 and 10.
Claim 8 as unpatentable
over Karakas and Lepeltier
The Examiner found that Karakas discloses that sensor 16 senses
acceleration and determined that it would have been obvious to use an
accelerometer as recited in claim 8 and taught by Lepeltier on the welding
system of Karakas as a matter of design to sense acceleration. Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues that Lepeltier does not cure the deficiencies of Karakas as
to claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. Appeal Br. 13—14. We agree.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8.
Claim 9 as unpatentable
over Karakas and Blankenship
The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to use radio
frequency or infrared communications as recited in claim 9 and taught by
Blankenship as a matter of design with the welding system of Karakas to
relay information from the sensors. Final Act. 4. Blankenship does not cure
the deficiencies of Karakas as to claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. See
Appeal Br. 14—15. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9.
4
Appeal 2015-006726
Application 13/178,168
Claims 1—7 as unpatentable
over Karakas and David
Appellant argues claims 1, 3, 7, and 10 as a group. Appeal Br. 15—23.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 3, 7, and 10 stand
or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We address separately
Appellant’s arguments as to dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 6.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 10
The Examiner found that Karakas discloses a welding power supply,
substantially as claimed including motion or position sensors 14, 16 coupled
to a processor (controller 20) and a wired communication system. Final Act.
4. The Examiner also found that Karakas discloses sensors attached to
welding head 4 which would be adjacent to and move in conjunction with a
glove used by a welder to hold welding head 4. Id. at 4—5. The Examiner
determined “it would have been obvious ... to move the sensors of Karakas
from the welding head to a glove as a matter of design since no advantage is
seen in choosing one location over the other.” Id. at 5. We again hold that
the Examiner’s rationale is not supported by a rational underpinning for the
reasons discussed above for the rejection of claim 1 over Karakas.
Alternatively, the Examiner found that David discloses a glove that
incorporates a motion sensor with a wireless communication device, and
determined it would have been obvious “to replace the sensor of Karakas
with that used in David to allow motion to depend on the user’s movements
instead of on the movements of the welding apparatus.” Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that David’s medical monitoring device is non-
analogous art and there is no teaching to adjust welding parameters based on
the detected motion of a welder. Appeal Br. 15—19; Reply Br. 5.
5
Appeal 2015-006726
Application 13/178,168
First, we find that David is reasonably pertinent to the problem to be
solved by Appellant. Appellant addressed the problem of adjusting welding
parameters on a welding system that is remote from an operator by detecting
operator movements via sensors on clothing worn by the operator, sending
that information to the welding system, and adjusting parameters of the
welding system based on that information. Spec. Tflf 2, 4—6, 13, 14.
Similarly, David is directed to the problem of acquiring, storing, and
transmitting information regarding conditions of a person including motions
to remote locations that can adjust parameters and functions of devices that
are located with the person. David, 1:14—20, 4:40-5:20. Motion and force
measuring sensors detect movements of a person wearing glove or sleeve 10.
Id. at 4:40—50. Central control unit 24 collects, stores, and transmits this
information via radio frequency, infrared, or other wireless transmissions to
a remote surveillance center that adjusts functions and features of glove 10.
Id. at 4:51—5:2. That this data pertains to the physiological conditions of a
person rather than welding does not negate David’s relevance to solving the
problem confronted by Appellant, particularly when the claims relate to
detecting the motions or positions of a person who is engaged in welding.
David detects motions and positions of people who are engaged in various
activities, including workplace activities. Id. at 1:15—20.
David teaches that a person’s position and movement can be detected
by placing sensors in clothing worn by the person and the data can be sent to
a remote location where it is used to control devices at the person’s location.
The Examiner reasonably determined this feature would allow a welder’s
movements to be detected and transmitted wirelessly to a remote welding
system to adjust parameters of the welding device in Karakas. Final Act. 5.
6
Appeal 2015-006726
Application 13/178,168
Appellant is correct that David does not teach the use of its system for
welding. However, Karakas uses sensors 14, 16 to detect a welding device’s
movements and transmit that information to remote welding system 6 that
adjusts welding parameters, as claimed. Karakas 66—80. David teaches
how to accomplish such remote monitoring using a glove with sensors and
then transmit the information wirelessly to a remote location that controls
functions and devices at the user’s location. The Appellant has attacked the
references individually rather than their combined teachings. Appellant’s
argument that neither reference provides a motivation to combine does not
apprise us of error in the Examiner’s stated reasons for combining the
teachings of both references. Appeal Br. 19; Ans. 12; Final Act. 5.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1,3,7, and 10.
Claims 2 and 4
We agree with the Examiner that Karakas and David render obvious
placing sensors in a glove as required by claim 2 for the same reasons as
discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 1. We are not persuaded,
however, that these teachings provide motivation to place sensors in a shoe
or boot as recited in claim 4. The Examiner’s reasoning that it would have
been obvious because “foot movement affecting welding would already be
known in the art and Karakas already teaches changing parameters through
movements” is not supported by evidence or rational underpinning. Final
Act. 5. Karakas places sensors on a device held in a person’s hand. David
places sensors on a glove. Neither reference senses position or movement of
a foot for welding or any other reason. The only basis for this modification
is Appellant’s disclosure. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 2, but not
of claim 4.
7
Appeal 2015-006726
Application 13/178,168
Claim 5
Modification of the welding system of Karakas with the portable and
self-contained glove, sensors, and wireless communication device (central
control unit 24) of David renders obvious a power module for the wireless
sensor module. Final Act. 5; David, 4:51—65, Fig. 2. Appellant’s argument
that David does not teach this feature does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s finding that David teaches a wireless communication device that
would be powered by a power supply. In this regard, David discloses that
central control unit 24 digitizes, stores, and transmits by RF, IR, or other
wireless transmission data from each sensor. David, 4:61—65.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 6
The Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious “to use
a photovoltaic cell as a power source as a matter of design as no particular
advantage can be seen from using it over other conventional power sources”
is not supported by a rational underpinning. Final Act. 5. Appellant argues
persuasively that a photovoltaic cell is not a matter of design choice because
it can be integrated into clothing and, unlike batteries, does not need to be
removed for recharging or replacement. Appeal Br. 23; Spec. 128. Thus,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 8 as unpatentable
over Karakas, David, and Lepeltier
Appellant argues that Lepeltier does not cure the deficiencies of
Karakas as to claim 1. Appeal Br. 23—24. Because we sustain the rejection
of claim 1 over Karakas and David, there is no deficiency for Lepeltier to
cure. We sustain the rejection of claim 8.
8
Appeal 2015-006726
Application 13/178,168
Claim 9 as unpatentable
over Karakas, David, and Blankenship
The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to use wireless
communications of Blankenship with the welding system of Karakas to relay
information from the sensors. Final Act. 6. Appellant argues that Karakas
teaches wired sensors 14, 16 so it would not have been obvious to replace a
wired connection with wireless communications. Appeal Br. 24—25.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive in view of our holding that
it would have been obvious to modify Karakas to place sensors on a glove as
taught by David with David’s central control unit 24 that includes a wireless
communications capability via radio frequency or infrared. David, 4:61—65.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 9.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1—7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Karakas.
We reverse the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Karakas and Lepeltier.
We reverse the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Karakas and Blankenship.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1—3, 5, 7, and 10 and reverse the
rejection of claims 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Karakas and
David.
We affirm the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Karakas, David, and Lepeltier.
We affirm the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Karakas, David, and Blankenship.
9
Appeal 2015-006726
Application 13/178,168
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10