Ex Parte Chantry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

13474267 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/474,267 05/17/2012
91854 7590 04/03/2018
Lincoln Electric Company/Perkins COIE LLP
700 Thirteenth Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005-3960
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bruce John Chantry
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.
201990.05860 4814
EXAMINER
LAFLAME JR, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2018 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):
wdcle@perkinscoie.com
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
ip@lincolnelectric.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUCE JOHN CHANTRY, JOSEPH DANIEL, and
TODD KOOKEN
Appeal2017-005854
Application 13/474,267
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bruce John Chantry et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14--17, 20, and 21 as unpatentable over Daniel '064
(US 2007/0262064 Al, published Nov. 15, 2007) and Daniel '942
(US 2007/0056942 Al, published Mar. 15, 2007). 1 Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10,
1 The Examiner includes canceled claims 5, 7, 13, and 22-25 in the heading
of the rejection. See Final Action 3 (hereinafter "Final Act.") (dated Apr. 6,
2016); see also Examiner's Answer 3 (hereinafter "Ans.") (dated Jan. 12,
2017). We consider this an inadvertent typographical error.
Appeal2017-005854
Application 13/474,267
13, 18, 19, and 22-25 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to "systems and methods for
selecting a welding output waveform in response to characterizing a welding
circuit output path with respect to its electrical characteristics." Spec. i-f 2,
Figs. 1, 4. Claims 1, 6, 12, and 21 are independent.
recite:
Claims 1 and 6 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter and
1. A method, said method comprising:
determining two or more electrical characteristics of a
welding output circuit path connected to a welding power source,
said electrical characteristics including an inductance value and
a resistance value; and
selecting a selected welding output waveform from a plurality
of welding output waveforms based on said at least two or more
electrical characteristics; and wherein
said selected welding output waveform is compatible with
rise and fall time limits of said welding output circuit path based
upon said two or more electrical characteristics including the
inductance value and the resistance value and
said welding power source applying said selected welding
output waveform to said welding output circuit path.
6. A welding power source comprising a welding output,
wherein said welding power source is configured to
determine two or more electrical characteristics of a welding
output circuit path connected to said welding output of said
2
Appeal2017-005854
Application 13/474,267
welding power source, said electrical characteristics
including an inductance value and a resistance value, and
wherein said welding power source is further configured
to select a selected welding output waveform from a plurality
of welding output waveforms stored in said welding power
source in response to said at least one electrical
characteristic; 2 and wherein
said selected welding output waveform is compatible with
rise and fall time limits of said welding output circuit path
based upon said two or more electrical characteristics
including the inductance value and the resistance value; and
further wherein
said welding power source is further configured to apply a
selected welding output waveform to a welding output circuit
path connected to said welding output of said welding power
source. 3
2 We note that "said at least one electrical characteristic" of claim 6 lacks
antecedent basis. See Appeal Brief 18-19, Claims App. (emphasis added)
(hereinafter "Appeal Br.") (filed Sept. 30, 2016). In reviewing claim 6 and in
comparing apparatus claim 6 with system claim 12, it appears Appellants
meant to recite "at least one of said two or more electrical characteristics."
See Appeal Br. 18-20, Claims App. (emphasis added). We understand claim
6 in this manner.
3 Claim 6 recites that "said welding power source is further configured to
apply g_selected welding output waveform tog_ welding output circuit path
connected to said welding output of said welding power source." See Appeal
Br. 18-19, Claims App. (emphasis added). In reviewing claim 6 and in
comparing apparatus claim 6 with method claim 1, it appears Appellants
meant to recite "said welding power source is further configured to apply said
selected welding output waveform to said welding output circuit path
connected to said welding output of said welding power source." See Appeal
Br. 18-19, Claims App. (emphasis added).
3
Appeal2017-005854
Application 13/474,267
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 is directed to a welding method including the
step of "selecting a selected welding output waveform from a plurality of
welding output waveforms based on said at least two or more electrical
characteristics." Appeal Br. 18, Claims App. (emphasis added). Appellants
contend that "selection of [the] waveform is based on inductance and
resistance of the welding output circuit path." See Appeal Br. 12-13
(emphasis added). We disagree with Appellants' position for the following
reasons.
Although claim 1 recites "said electrical characteristics including an
inductance value and a resistance value," claim 1 further recites the steps of
"determining two or more electrical characteristics of a welding output
circuit path" and "selecting a selected welding output waveform ... based
on said at least two or more electrical characteristics" of the welding output
circuit path. Appeal Br. 18, Claims App. (emphasis added). Claim 1 is
open-ended as to the electrical characteristics under consideration, i.e.,
including, but not limited to, "an inductance value and a resistance value."
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, selection of the selected waveform of claim 1 can be based on
inductance and resistance or any two electrical characteristics of the welding
output circuit path, including current and voltage characteristics. 4 Stated
differently, selecting a selected welding output waveform based on
4 Appellants' Specification merely discloses "inductance" and "resistance" as
examples of electrical characteristics of a welding output circuit path. See
Spec. iii! 5, 30, 41, 45, 48.
4
Appeal2017-005854
Application 13/474,267
"electrical characteristics" other than "inductance and resistance" does not
demonstrate error. Id.
Independent claim 1 further recites that "said selected welding output
waveform is compatible with rise and fall time limits of said welding output
circuit path." Appeal Br. 18, Claims App. The Examiner relies on Daniel
'064 for this limitation. In particular, the Examiner finds:
The selected waveform is compatible with rise and fall time
limits of said welding output circuit path at least because Daniel
('064) also uses at least one (ie. can use both) of the inductance
and resistance value feedback and analyzes these values with
respect to desired output parameters (ie. waveform) and indicates
if the output circuit path is acceptable [0047] (ie. if the output
circuit path is compatible with the values including rise and fall
time limits).
Ans. 5; see also id. at 7; Daniel '064 i-f 47.
Daniel '064 discloses
An additional variable that can affect the performance of
a welding system but is difficult to control, or measure, is the
inductance of the welding circuit. Inductance increases with long
cables that are typically connected to the output of a welding
power source. As this inductance increases, the power source
welding performance can degrade because it may not have the
ability to reach a desired output within a desired period of time.
A combination of all these variables (desired output level,
rate of change, and amount of voltage available from the power
source) are needed to determine if a specific welding circuit
inductance is acceptable or not. Knowing these requirements,
measuring the inductance (also measuring the inductance at a
high current level), and determining what is acceptable are not
functions that an operator can be expected to perform.
Daniel '064 i-fi-15, 6 (emphasis added). Daniel '064 further discloses
5
Appeal2017-005854
Application 13/474,267
In accordance with an embodiment of the present
invention, at least one of the calculated inductance value and
calculated resistance value is analyzed with respect to desired
output parameters stored within the welding power source. An
indication of acceptability of the welding output circuit path is
then displayed based on the analysis.
Daniel '064 i-f 4 7.
Based on Daniel '064's disclosure, we agree with Appellants that
paragraph 47 of Daniel '064 "merely discloses providing an indication of
acceptability based on calculated inductance." Reply Br. 6. 5 In this case,
the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or technical reasoning to
explain how acceptability of the welding output circuit path based on
calculated inductance is indicative of the selected welding output waveform
being "compatible with rise and fall time limits of [the] welding output
circuit path," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 18, Claims App.
Each of independent claims 6, 12, and 21 includes the language "said
selected welding output waveform is compatible with rise and fall time
limits of said welding output circuit path." See Appeal Br. 19, 20, 22,
Claims App. The Examiner relies on the same unsupported findings in
Daniel '064 for claims 6, 12, and 21 as those discussed above for claim 1.
See Final Act. 3--4. Thus, the Examiner's findings with respect to Daniel
'064 are deficient for claims 6, 12, and 21 as well.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14--17, 20, and 21 as unpatentable over Daniel '064
and Daniel '942.
5 Reply Brief (hereinafter "Reply Br.") (filed Mar. 3, 2017).
6
Appeal2017-005854
Application 13/474,267
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4, 6, 8,
11, 12, 14--17, 20, and 21 as unpatentable over Daniel '064 and Daniel '942.
REVERSED
7