Ex Parte Peters et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 1, 201711457864 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 11/457,864 07/17/2006 Steven R. Peters 201990.02387 7895 64956 7590 12/05/2017 HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN 200 Public Square, Suite 2800 Cleveland, OH 44114 EXAMINER MAYE, AYUB A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/05/2017 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): patents@hahnlaw.com ip @ lincolnelectrie .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN R. PETERS and JOSEPH ALLEN DANIEL Appeal 2016-004783 Application 11/457,864 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 4—16, and 19-27. App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 3.1 Claims 2, 3, 17, and 18 were cancelled. App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 All references to the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief are to the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief filed on October 17, 2013, and April 19, 2011, respectively. Appeal 2016-004783 Application 11/457,864 Appellants ’ Invention Appellants purportedly invented a multiple arc welding system, apparatus, and method directed to a single system controller that provides local welding machine setpoint values to two or more welding machines based on a single user selected system setpoint. Spec. 2:7—11. According to Appellants, the disclosed invention may facilitate ease in synergic configuration and operation of components in a multiple arc welding system without requiring the user or operator to carefully balance the settings of each welding machine. Id. at 2:11—15. System performance may be set according to a number of system setpoints, including deposition rate, weld size, wire feed speed, current, voltage, travel speed, etc. Id. at 2:15—17. The single system controller divides or allocates the system setpoint into local setpoints for each welding machine. Id. at 2:17—19. Illustrative Claim Claims 1, 14, 23, and 26 are independent claims. Independent claim 1 is directed to a multiple arc welding system; independent claim 14 is directed to a welding system controller for controlling a multiple arc welding system; independent claim 23 is directed to a method for controlling first and second welding machines according to a single user selected system setpoint value; and independent claim 26 is directed to a welding machine for creating a welding arc in a multiple arc welding system. Claims 4—13 directly or indirectly depend from independent claim 1; claims 15, 16, 19-22 directly or indirectly depend from independent claim 14; claims 24 and 25 directly depend from independent claim 23; and claim 27 directly depends from independent claim 26. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the disclosed invention and is reproduced below: 2 Appeal 2016-004783 Application 11/457,864 1. A multiple arc welding system, comprising: a first welding machine with a first power source for providing a first welding signal to create a first welding arc; a second welding machine with a second power source for providing a second welding signal to create a second welding arc; and a welding system controller with a setpoint allocation system, the setpoint allocation system receiving a user selected system setpoint value for selecting setting a total output of the multiple arc welding system, and the setpoint allocation system providing first and second welding machine setpoint values based on the system setpoint value to the first and second welding machines, wherein the system setpoint value is one of a deposition rate, a weld size, and a travel speed, and the total output is one of a total deposition rate, a total weld size, and a total travel speed of the multiple arc welding system, wherein each of the welding machines individually provide a welding signal waveform to create a corresponding welding arc according to a corresponding one of the welding machine setpoint values in order to set the total output of the multiple arc welding system according to the system setpoint value. App. Br. 15 (Claims Appendix). Prior Art Relied Upon Inventor2 Patent Issuance Date Myers U.S. Patent No. 7,105,773 B2 Sept. 12, 2006 Gilliland ’139 U.S. Patent No. 5,136,139 Aug. 4, 1992 Gilliland ’761 U.S. Patent No. 5,906,761 May 25, 1999 2 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor. 3 Appeal 2016-004783 Application 11/457,864 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 4, 7—11, 14, 19, 22, 23, 26, and 27 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Myers. Fin. Act. 2—6.3 Claims 5, 6, 15, 16, 24, and 25 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Myers and Gilliland ’139. Id. at 7—8. Claims 12, 13, 20, and 21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Myers and Gilliland ’761. Id. at 8. Examiner’s Findings The Examiner finds that Myers discloses all the limitations recited in independent claims 1, 14, 23, and 26. Fin. Act. 3—6. In particular, the Examiner directs us to Figures 1, 2, and 17 of Myers, along with their corresponding descriptions in the specification, to account for the following limitations: (a) a “setpoint allocation system receiving a user selected system setpoint value for . . . setting a total output of the multiple arc welding system,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 14; (b) “obtaining a user selected system setpoint value for setting a total output of the multiple arc welding system,” as recited in independent claim 23; and (c) a “setpoint allocation system operative to provide first and second welding machine setpoint values based on a user selected system setpoint value for setting a total output of the multiple arc welding system,” as recited in independent claim 26. Id. In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies that Myers describes these limitations because its remote central control 18 constitutes a single 3 All references to the Final Action are to the Final Action entered on July 12, 2010. 4 Appeal 2016-004783 Application 11/457,864 control that provides parameter and synchronization data to controllers and power supplies 30, 32 in order to control different electrodes in a tandem operation. Ans. 10—11.4 Appellants ’ Contentions Appellants disagree with the Examiner’s position that Myers’ remote central control 18 (otherwise known as central control computer and/or web server 60) that controls different electrodes in a tandem operation accounts for the disputed limitations identified above. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6. Appellants argue that Myers’ remote central control 18 does not receive “a user selected system setpoint value for setting a total output of the multiple arc welding system,” as claimed. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6. Appellants further argue that, even assuming that a user could use Myers’ remote central control 18 to select individual welding parameters of each individual arc, Myers does not disclose that a user may select a “system setpoint value” to set a “total output” of a multiple arc welding system. App. Br. 12. II. ISSUE The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in determining that Myers anticipates independent claims 1, 14, 23, and 26. In particular, the issue turns on whether Myers accounts for the following limitations: (a) a “setpoint allocation system receiving a user selected system setpoint value for . . . setting a total output of the multiple arc welding system,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 14; 4 All references to the Examiner’s Answer are to the Answer entered on March 8, 2011. 5 Appeal 2016-004783 Application 11/457,864 (b) “obtaining a user selected system setpoint value for setting a total output of the multiple arc welding system,” as recited in independent claim 23; and (c) a “setpoint allocation system operative to provide first and second welding machine setpoint values based on a user selected system setpoint value for setting a total output of the multiple arc welding system,” as recited in independent claim 26. III. ANALYSIS 102(e) Rejection Claims 1, 14, 23, and 26 Based on the record before us, we discern error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 14, 23, and 26, which recite the limitations identified above. Figure 1 of Myers illustrates electric arc welding system S that performs a tandem arc welding process using master welder A and slave welder B. Myers, 10:14—25. Electric arc welding system S includes remote central control 18 (otherwise known as central control computer and/or web server 60) that generates welding parameters (e.g., digital information or data relating to specific power supplies) and communicates those parameters to controllers and power supplies 30, 32 located within welders A and B, respectively. Id. at 10:21—23, 10:36—38, 11:40-44. As an initial matter, Myers is silent as to how its remote central control 18 generates the welding parameters it communicates to controllers and power supplies 30, 32 located within welders A and B, respectively (i.e., by selection from a prospective user or by software that performs automated 6 Appeal 2016-004783 Application 11/457,864 selection). Putting aside Myers’ lack of disclosure in this regard, we agree with Appellants that Myers, at best, discloses a tandem arc welding process that allows a user to select individual welding parameters of each individual arc. Indeed, the master/slave relationship between Myer’s welder A and B reinforces that a prospective user merely selects individual welding parameters for welder A, which, in turn, controls welder B. The Examiner does not direct us to, nor can we find, a disclosure in Myers indicating that a prospective user can optimize Myers’ entire process by selecting a system setpoint value for setting a total output of its multiple arc welding system. Absent a sufficient explanation from the Examiner as to how Myers’ multiple arc welding system achieves such a desired system output, we agree with Appellants that Myers does not account properly for the limitations identified above. See App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6. We need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments because the Examiner has not presented sufficient argument and evidence to support a finding that Myers properly accounts for selecting a system setpoint value for setting a total output of a multiple arc welding system. It follows that the Examiner has erred in determining that Myers anticipates independent claims 1, 14, 23, and 26. Claims 4, 7—11, 19, 22, and 27 The Examiner has erred in rejecting dependent claims 4, 7—11, 19, 22, and 27 for the same reason set forth above in our discussion of independent claims 1, 14, 23, and 26, because each of these dependent claims include the same limitations as their underlying base claim. 7 Appeal 2016-004783 Application 11/457,864 Remaining 103(a) Rejections Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, and 25 As noted previously, each of dependent claims 5,6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, and 24 depend from at least one of independent claims 1,14, and 23. As applied by the Examiner, neither Gilliland ’139 nor Gilliland ’761 remedy the deficiency in Myers identified above. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to independent claims 1,14, and 23, the Examiner has erred in determining that (1) the combined teachings of Myers and Gilliland ’139 renders dependent claims 5, 6, 15, 16, 24, and 25 unpatentable; and (2) the combined teachings of Myers and Gilliland ’761 renders dependent claims 12, 13, 20, and 21 unpatentable. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Examiner has erred in rejecting (1) claims 1, 4, 7—11, 14, 19, 22, 23, 26, and 27 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and (2) claims 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, and 25 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). V. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4—16, and 19—27. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation