Ex Parte Fujiwara

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2018

12993889 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/993,889 11/22/2010
52473 7590 12/19/2018
RATNERPRESTIA
2200 RENAISSANCE BL VD
SUITE 350
KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Junji Fujiwara
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.
MAT-10415US 9288
EXAMINER
STAPLETON, ERIC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2018 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):
pcorrespondence@ratnerpres tia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUN JI FUJIWARA 1
Appeal2017-009845
Application 12/993,889
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JILL D. HILL, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Office Action rejecting claims 17, 19-27, and 29-342. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Panasonic Intellectual
Property Management Co., Ltd. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1-16, 18, and 28 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 11-14 (Claims
App.).
Appeal2017-009845
Application 12/993,889
BACKGROUND
Independent claims 1 7 and 2 7 are pending. Independent claim 1 7,
reproduced below, illustrates the claimed invention.
17. An arc welding method comprising:
setting a set current;
automatically setting an optimal voltage and a first
current waveform having a portion that increases with a first
constant slope of a short circuit current according to the set
current;
changing the optimal voltage to a set voltage;
automatically changing the first current waveform having
the portion that increases with the first constant slope of the
short circuit current to a second current waveform having a
portion that increases with a second constant slope of the short
circuit current based on a difference between the optimal
voltage and the set voltage; and
starting welding with a consumable electrode by the set
current, the set voltage and the second current waveform,
wherein the setting step of the set current, changing step
of the optimal voltage to the set voltage, and changing step of
the first current waveform to the second current waveform are
performed prior to the step of starting welding, and
wherein when the set voltage is less than the optimal
voltage, the first constant slope is gentler than the second
constant slope, and
when the set voltage is greater than the optimal voltage,
the first constant slope is steeper than the second constant slope.
App. Br. 11 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 17, 19-27, and 29-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Stava (US 2006/0226131 Al, pub. Oct. 12, 2006) and
Flood (US 2003/0080101 Al, pub. May 1, 2003). Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal2017-009845
Application 12/993,889
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 7 and 19--26
The Examiner finds that Stava discloses the limitations of the pending
claims (Final Act. 3-9), and "[t]o the extent that it may be argued that Stava
does not discloses automatically changing the first current waveform having
the first constant slope of the short circuit current to a second current
waveform having a second constant slope of the short circuit current," Flood
also discloses the limitations of the pending claims (Final Act. 9-15)
( emphasis omitted). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Stava, and provides reasoning
therefor. Final Act. 16 ( citing Flood ,r 24 ).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Stava does not disclose changing a
current waveform prior to the start of welding as recited in independent
claim 17, because Stava discloses determining the amount of energy applied
in a welding cycle based on previous cycles that occur after welding starts.
Appeal Br. 6-7. Utilizing previous cycles for such a determination indicates
that the determination occurs during welding, rather than before the start of
welding. Id.
Appellant likewise argues that each of Flood's current waveform
modification triggers "is dependent on a previous welding event or an
ongoing welding event," such that it would not be possible to trigger a
change in Flood's welding current waveform prior to the start of welding, or
to start welding using a modified welding current waveform. Id. at 4, 8.
The Examiner responds that Stava and Flood disclose waveform
adjustments being made prior to subsequent welding cycles, which the
Examiner equates to the start of welding. Ans. 3. According to the
3
Appeal2017-009845
Application 12/993,889
Examiner, Flood discloses starting welding with a set current, set voltage
and the second current waveform "(e.g., Fig. 1 of Flood clearly labels
consumable electrode feed rate controller in communication with structure
such as the computer controlled table driven waveform generator and the
weld voltage amplifier and detector)." Id. at 5---6. Regarding Stava, the
Examiner contends that "the cycles of Stava mean that automatically
changing a current waveform occurs in Stava prior to subsequent welding
cycles (i.e., prior to the start of welding)." Id. at 6-7.
Appellant has the better argument. According to Appellant, prior to
the claimed invention, adjustment of the increasing slope and inflection
point of the short circuit current were carried out by the welding operator
"manipulating the knob at the same time as the adjustment of the setting
voltage," which is "difficult for the operator." Spec. 4, 11. 4--9. In
accordance with claim 17, Appellant's arc welding method automatically
sets an optimal voltage and an associated first current waveform and, when
the optimal voltage is changed to a set voltage ( e.g, by operator selection),
the first current waveform is automatically changed to a second current
waveform. Thereafter, welding starts, using the second current waveform
that was automatically selected after the optimal voltage was changed to the
set voltage. See Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
The Examiner has not explained why changing a current waveform
prior to a subsequent welding cycle is the same as, or suggests, changing a
current waveform prior to the start of welding. Further, it is unclear why
Flood's controller being in communication with a "computer controlled table
driven waveform generator and the weld voltage amplifier and detector"
implies that Flood starts welding with a second current waveform that was
4
Appeal2017-009845
Application 12/993,889
changed from a first current waveform based on a voltage difference, as
called for by independent claim 1 7.
For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim
17, or claims 19--26 that depend therefrom.
Claims 27 and 29--34
Independent claim 2 7 recites, similar to independent claim 1 7,
changing from a first current waveform to a second current waveform "prior
to the step of starting welding," although it is an initial current, rather than a
waveform slope, that is varied based on a voltage difference. For the reason
set forth above in our analysis of claim 17, we are not persuaded that neither
Stava nor Flood discloses that the waveform is changed from a first
waveform to a second waveform prior to starting welding. For this reason,
we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 27, or claims 29--34 that
depend therefrom.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 17, 19--27, and 29-34 as
unpatentable over Stava and Flood.
REVERSED
5