Ex Parte Fernandez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2012

11198046 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte VERNON FERNANDEZ, MANOHAR DAS, and
GERRY GRZADZINSKI
____________________

Appeal 2010-010999
Application 11/198,046
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-010999
Application 11/198,046

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Claims 1 and 6 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A welding method wherein a plurality of
stacks of workpieces are clamped together in
sequence at a welding site between a pair of
electrode caps across which welding current is
supplied to spot weld together the workpieces in
each of the stacks in a series of welding operations
in a production run, comprising:
pressing the electrode caps against the
workpieces in each of the stacks when each of the
stacks is at the welding site with an applied force
that includes an interjoint force that is increased
progressively throughout the production run;
wherein the interjoint force at any point in
time during the production run is determined as a
function of a number of spot welds made and a
total amount of energy delivered at a given power
rate by the electrode caps up to that point in time
in the production run.

REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
(1) Claims 1, 6, 9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Al-Nabulsi (US 6,294,750 B1, iss. Sep. 25, 2001) and Schomer (US
3,445,621, iss. May 20, 1969). Ans. 3-5.

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Chrysler Group LLC. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2010-010999
Application 11/198,046

3
(2) Claims 2 and 7 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Al-Nabulsi,
Schomer, and Hamada (US 4,841,113, iss. Jun. 20, 1989). Ans. 5-6.

ANALYSIS

Claims 1, 6, 9, and 11 over Al-Nabulsi and Schomer
The Examiner found that Al-Nabulsi discloses all of the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 6, but acknowledged that Al-Nabulsi fails to
disclose that “the interjoint force . . . is determined as a function of a number
of spot welds made and a total amount of energy delivered at a given power
rate by the electrode caps up to that point in time in the production run.”
Ans. 4.
The Examiner found that Schomer discloses increasing welding
current over the production run based on the number of welds made. Id.
(citing Schomer, col. 1, ll. 15-17 and col. 4, ll. 60-67). The Examiner also
found that Schomer discloses that “[t]he weld heat is increased thereby
increasing the forces at the joint.” Id. The Examiner then concluded that:
[i]n view of Schomer’s teachings it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
include with the teachings of Al-Nabulsi, increasing the
interjoin[t] force as a function of a number of spot welds made
and the counter since Schomer teaches increasing the weld
current and heat as the number of spot weld[s] made increases
to compensate for disfiguration of the welding caps to maintain
a satisfactory weld and the counter for tracking the number of
spot welds made.
Ans. 5.
The Examiner’s finding that an increase in welding current and weld
heat increases forces at the joint (Ans. 4) does not support a finding that an
increase in welding current results in increased “interjoint force” as recited
Appeal 2010-010999
Application 11/198,046

4
in the claims since “interjoint force” has a particular definition in accordance
with Appellants’ Specification. Interjoint force is described as “[t]he force
applied to the sheets [or other workpieces being welded] to produce [a
predetermined] optimum pressure.” Spec., para. [0005]. Schomer fails to
teach or suggest increasing the force with which the workpieces are clamped
together as a function of the number of spot welds and/or total energy
delivery. App. Br. 5. Rather, Schomer discloses increasing the welding
current, not the welding force (i.e., interjoint force), based on the number of
welds made from a predetermined starting point. Schomer, col. 1, ll. 49-55.
Schomer is primarily concerned with increasing the welding current
as the number of spot welds is increased in order to maintain approximately
the same current density despite deformation of the electrode so that the
same amount of heat per weld is available to form the resulting spot weld.
Schomer, col. 4, ll. 60-67. In contrast, Appellants are primarily concerned
with increasing the force with which the workpieces are clamped together as
a function of the number of spot welds in order to maintain the force with
which the workpieces are clamped together at a desirable level. Spec. para.
[0005]. Neither Al-Nabulsi nor Schomer teach or suggest increasing the
force with which the workpieces are clamped together—the “interjoint
force”—as the number of spot welds is increased. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on a finding not supported
by the reference.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Examiner erred in
concluding that claims 1, 6, 9, and 11 are unpatentable over Al-Nabulsi and
Schomer.
Appeal 2010-010999
Application 11/198,046

5
Claims 2 and 7 over Al-Nabulsi, Schomer, and Hamada
Claims 2 and 7 depend from claims 1 and 6, respectively. The
Examiner’s use of the teachings of Hamada does not remedy the deficiencies
of Al-Nabulsi and Schomer as described above. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 7 under § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Al-Nabulsi, Schomer, and Hamada.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 11 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED

Klh