Ex Parte Peters et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 1, 2017

11457864 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 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.
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