Ex Parte Samodell

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 2012

11142593 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RALPH SAMODELL ____________ Appeal 2010-011690 Application 11/142,593 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before: STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, JOHN W. MORRISON, and NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judges. Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge MORRISON. Opinion Dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge McCARTHY. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011690 Application 11/142,593 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to an apparatus and methods for AC and DC TIG welding and starting at low current levels. Spec. 1. Claims 1, 26, and 41 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below: 1. A TIG welder operable to provide an output welding current through a gap in a welding circuit between an electrode and a workpiece according to a setpoint current value, said welder comprising: a first power supply comprising a first transformer secondary winding; an SCR network connected to said first transformer secondary winding, said SCR network being operable to selectively connect said first transformer secondary winding to said welding circuit according to SCR control signals so as to provide a first current to said welding circuit; a second power supply connected to said SCR network, said SCR network being operable to selectively connect said second power supply to said welding circuit according to said SCR control signals so as to provide a second current to said welding circuit through at least one SCR in said SCR network of said first power supply; and a control circuit connected to said SCR network and to said second power supply and operable to selectively connect said SCR control signals to said SCR network according to said setpoint current value. Appeal 2010-011690 Application 11/142,593 3 THE REJECTIONS Appellant seeks review of the following rejections. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) over Barhorst (US 4,180,720, iss. Dec. 25, 1979). Claims 1, 26, 27 and 41are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Schwartz (US 6,384,373 B1, iss. May 7, 2002) and Barhorst. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Schwartz, Barhorst and Heraly (US 6,034,350, iss. Mar. 7, 2000). Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Schwartz, Barhorst, Heraly and Campiotti (US 4,950,864, iss. Aug. 21, 1990). Claims 10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Schwartz, Barhorst, Campiotti and Ogilvie (US 4,758,707, iss. Jul, 19, 1988). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Schwartz, Barhorst, Campiotti, Ogilvie and Overman (US 4,459,459, iss. Jul. 10, 1984). Claims 17-19, 21-24, 28-30, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Schwartz, Barhorst, and Campiotti. Claims 20, 25, 31, and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Schwartz, Barhorst, Campiotti and Ogilvie. ANALYSIS Anticipation by Barhorst Addressing claim 26, the Examiner finds that Barhorst discloses Appeal 2010-011690 Application 11/142,593 4 second power supply means for (power supply 20) supplying welding current being connected to the SCR network (see Figures 1, 2), (SCR-1 - SCR-5; column 2, line 30 - column 4, line 36; see Figures 1-3) operating to selectively connect a second power supply (power supply 20) to a welding circuit (see Figure 1) according to SCR control signals (from gating circuit 30; Abstract; column 3, lines 30-37) so as to provide a second current to the welding circuit (power source 20 added to arc circuit) through at least one SCR (SCR-2 and SCR-3 are on SCR-1 , SCR-3 and SCR-5 are off) in the SCR network (SCR-1 - SCR-5) of the first power supply (power supply 10); and control means (gating circuit 30) for controlling the SCR network (SCR-1 - SCR-5) being connected to the SCR network (SCR-1 - SCR-5) and the second power supply (power supply 20) and operable to selectively connect the SCR control signals to the SCR network (SCR-1 - SCR-5) according to the setpoint current value Ans. 4-5. First, the Appellant argues that “despite the Examiner's characterization, Barhorst does not disclose second power supply means connected to an SCR network of a first power supply means.” App. Br. 12 The Appellant further argues that “the connection of the second power supply to the SCR network of the first power supply and control of the second power supply through the SCR circuit as claimed, causes the second power supply to provide filling or background current to the welding circuit through the first power supply.” Id. The Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Appeal 2010-011690 Application 11/142,593 5 Appellant’s Specification does not disclose any structural distinction between an SCR network that is considered to be part of the first power source and the SCR network of Barhorst. As such, the second power supply in Barhorst is connected to the SCR network, which can be considered part of the first power supply, in the same manner as the first power supply of the Appellant’s invention includes the SCR network. Thus, in operation, the second power supply does provide power through the SCR network which is part of the first power supply. Therefore, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding. Second, the Appellant also argues that control means of Barhorst is not connected to the SCR network and second power supply because, “SCR network connects to the gating circuit and the second power supply means separately attaches to the gating circuit.” App. Br. 12. However, the Examiner finds that the gating circuit connects to “second power supply (power supply 20) being directly connected to the SCR network (SCR-1 - SCR-5) and indirectly connected to the control means (gating circuit 30) via the SCR network.” Ans. 23. The Appellant does not challenge to this finding. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding. For the reasons above, we sustain the rejection to claim 26. Obviousness over Schwartz and Barhorst Addressing claims 1, 26, 27, and 41 the Examiner finds Schwartz “disclose[s] all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as previously set forth, except for the SCR network being operable to selectively connect the second power supply to the welding circuit.” Ans. 6. The Examiner relies on Barhorst to make up for this deficiency. Id. at 7. Again, the Appellant Appeal 2010-011690 Application 11/142,593 6 argues that neither Barhorst nor Schwartz teaches “connecting the control circuit to an SCR of a first power supply and connecting the control circuit to the second power supply.” App. Br. 14 The Appellant further argues that the combination of Schwartz and Barhorst does not provide any teaching or suggestion of providing a second power supply connected to an SCR network of a first power supply being operable to selectively connect the second power supply to the welding circuit according to the SCR control signals to provide a second current to the welding circuit through at least one SCR in the SCR network of the first power supply and a control circuit connected to both the SCR network and to the second power supply. App. Br. 15. As discussed above, the Examiner finds that each of these limitations is taught by Barhorst directly and indirectly. In addition, the Examiner finds Schwartz directly discloses “control circuit (32) connected to a SCR network (power primary conversion circuit 34) with the control circuit (32) selectively turning on/off a second power supply (supplemental power circuit 38) via controlling switch (56) (column 3, lines 43-46).” Ans. 24. The Appellant argues “[i]n Schwartz, the supplemental power circuit is operated by a switch 56 such that control circuit 32 plays no part in selectively connecting the supplemental power circuit 38 to the welding circuit.” App. Br. 15. This argument directly contradicts the disclosure of Schwartz, which states, “[s]witch 56 is configured to turn supplemental power circuit 38 on or off in a selective manner, and may be controlled by the control circuit 32.” Schwartz col. 3, ll. 43-46 . Therefore, we find that the Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 26, and 27. Appeal 2010-011690 Application 11/142,593 7 The Appellant argues claim 41 separately. The Appellant contends claim 41 contains “the additional limitation that the second power supply comprises first and second background power supplies. As admitted by the Examiner in connection with the rejection of claim 3, neither Schwartz nor Barhorst discloses this limitation.” App. Br. 15. The Appellant has identified error in the Examiner’s findings. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 41. Obviousness over Schwartz, Barhorst and Heraly Addressing claim 2, the Examiner relies on Ogilvie to teach “a comparator circuit (comparators 12, 13) having an input connected to a setpoint current value (background height) and a first given current value (I arc: representing that actual current).” Ans. 12. The Appellant correctly points to Examiner error that Ogilvie is not a cited reference. App. Br. 16. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 2. Obviousness over Schwartz, Barhorst, Heraly, and Campiotti Addressing claims 3-9, the Examiner finds the “combination of Campiotti et al. would put the activation of the second background power supply under control of the control circuit (32) just like the control of the first background power supply (supplemental power circuit 38) by the first background switch (switch 56).” Ans. 14. The Appellant counters “Campiotti teaches three power supplies that are connected in series.” App. Br. 16. The Appellant further contends that there “is no teaching of providing a first power supply and a second power supply, where the second power supply itself includes first and second power supplies that can be used Appeal 2010-011690 Application 11/142,593 8 alternatively to supply a second current.” App. Br. 16-17. The Appellant has correctly identified error in the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner fails to show how the series power supplies taught by Campiotti could be combined with the SCR networks of Barhorst or Swartz to alternately produce the same second current required by claim 3. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 3-9. Obviousness over Schwartz, Barhorst, Campiotti, and Ogilvie Addressing claims 10 and 12-16, nothing in Ogilvie cures the underlying deficiency to the rejection of claim 3. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 12-16. Obviousness over Schwartz, Barhorst, Campiotti, Ogilvie and Overman Addressing claim 11, nothing in Overman cures the underlying deficiency to the rejection of claim 10. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 11. Obviousness over Schwartz, Barhorst, and Campiotti Addressing claims 17-19, 21-24, 28-30, and 32-34, the Appellant argues that, like claim 3, each of these claims includes the limitations of claims 17 or 28 which require a second power supply with a first background power supply and a second background power supply that can be used alternately to supply a second current. App. Br. 16-19. For the same reasons as the rejection to claim 3, supra, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 17 and 28, and of claims 18, 19, 21-24, 29, 30, and 32-34 which depend therefrom. Appeal 2010-011690 Application 11/142,593 9 Obviousness over Schwartz, Barhorst, Campiotti and Ogilvie Addressing claims 20, 25, 31, and 35-40, the Appellant argues that, like claim 3, each of these claims includes the limitations of claims 17 or 28 which require a second power supply with a first background power supply and a second background power supply that can be used alternately to supply a second current. App. Br. 16-20. The addition of Ogilvie does not cure the underlying deficiency to the rejection of claim 3. Thus, like claim 3, supra, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 17 and 28, and of claims 20, 25, 31, and 35-40 which depend therefrom. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed as to claims 1, 26, and 27 and reversed as to claims 2-25 and 28-41. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART mls Appeal 2010-011690 Application 11/142,593 10 McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting. I join in my colleagues’ decision affirming the rejection of claims 1, 26, and 27; and reversing the rejection of claims 3-25 and 28-41. I write separately with respect to claim 2 because I believe that the Examiner has sufficiently answered the Appellant’s arguments and the Appellant does not appear to have replied persuasively. I write separately as to the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because my reasons for sustaining the ground of rejection differ in some respects from my colleagues’. Except to the extent expressly stated below, I join in my colleagues’ findings and conclusions. Rejection of Claim 26 under § 102(b) as Being Anticipated by Barhorst Claim 26 recites: 26. A TIG welder operable to provide an output welding current through a gap in a welding circuit between an electrode and a workpiece according to a setpoint current value, said welder comprising: first power supply means for supplying welding current comprising an SCR network connected to a first transformer secondary winding, said SCR network being operable to selectively connect said first transformer secondary winding to said welding circuit according to SCR control signals to provide a first current to said welding circuit; second power supply means for supplying welding current being connected to said SCR network, said SCR network being further operable to selectively connect said second power supply means to said welding circuit through at least one SCR in said SCR network according to said SCR Appeal 2010-011690 Application 11/142,593 11 control signals to provide a second current to said welding circuit through said first power supply means; and control means for controlling said SCR network being connected to said SCR network and said second power supply means and operable to selectively connect said SCR control signals to said SCR network according to said setpoint value. Barhorst describes a welding power supply system. Barhorst’s welding power supply system includes a first power supply source 10 connected to an arc circuit 15 through a silicon controlled rectifier (“SCR”) network SCR-1, SCR-2, SCR-3, SCR-4. (Barhorst, col. 2, ll. 31-37 and fig. 1). Barhorst’s first power supply 10 as illustrated in Figure 2 includes a transformer 40 having a secondary winding indirectly connected to the SCR network SCR-1, SCR-2, SCR-3, SCR-4. (Barhorst, col. 3, ll. 43-53 and fig. 2). Barhorst’s welding power supply system also includes a second power source 20 in parallel with shorting means in the form of an SCR switch SCR- 5. (Barhorst, col. 2, ll. 41-46 and fig. 1). A gating circuit 30 generates control signals or trigger pulses for controlling the SCR network SCR-1, SCR-2, SCR-3, SCR-4 as well as the switch SCR-5. (Barhorst, col. 2, ll. 53- 57). The Examiner correctly finds that Barhorst’s SCR network SCR-1, SCR-2, SCR-3, SCR-4, in combination with Barhorst’s first power source 10 (including the secondary winding of Barhorst’s transformer 40), corresponds to the “first power supply means” recited in claim 26. (Ans. 4, ll. 9-15; see also id. at 22, l. 18 – 23, l. 1). The Examiner also correctly finds that Barhorst’s second power source 20, presumably in combination with at least the switch SCR-5, corresponds to the “second power supply means” recited Appeal 2010-011690 Application 11/142,593 12 in claim 26. (See Ans. 4, ll. 15-22; see also Barhorst, col. 2, ll. 53-57 (finding that a connection between the gating circuit or control means 30 and the second power supply is made to the switch SCR-5)). The Examiner correctly finds that Barhorst’s gating circuit 30 corresponds to the “control means” recited in claim 26. (Ans. 4, l. 22 – 5, l. 3). The Appellant argues that Barhorst’s SCR network SCR-1, SCR-2, SCR-3, SCR-4 is not part of a “first power supply means” (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2 and 4); that Barhorst’s SCR network SCR-1, SCR-2, SCR-3, SCR-4 and second power source 20 are not connected but instead bridged by the gating circuit 30 (App. Br. 12); and that Barhorst’s second power source 20 is not connected to the gating circuit 30 (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2-3). The Examiner does not appear to conclude that the term “first power supply means” as recited in claim 26 should be interpreted in accordance with the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Neither does the Appellant appear to argue that such an interpretation might be required. I agree that the sixth paragraph of § 112 is inapplicable because claim 26 recites sufficient structure to perform the function of supplying welding current, namely, an SCR network connected to a first transformer secondary winding, without importing corresponding structure from the Specification. See Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Since the Appellant does not appear to identify an express definition of a claim term in the specification or a clear disclaimer of scope, the claim term is interpreted as broadly as the ordinary usage of the term by one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would permit. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Morris, 127 F.3d Appeal 2010-011690 Application 11/142,593 13 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Considered in the context of claim 26, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “first power supply means” encompasses a combination of an SCR network connected (albeit indirectly) to a first transformer secondary winding capable of supplying welding current. In view of this claim interpretation, the Examiner correctly finds that Barhorst’s SCR network SCR-1, SCR-2, SCR-3, SCR-4, in combination with Barhorst’s first power source 10 (including the secondary winding of Barhorst’s transformer 40), corresponds to the “first power supply means.” Figure 1 of Barhorst depicts the second power source 20 and the switch SCR-5 as each being connected to the SCR network SCR-1, SCR-2, SCR-3, SCR-4 through a passive diode D1. (See Barhorst, col. 2, ll. 46-48). The second power source 20 and the switch SCR-5 are not connected to the SCR network SCR-1, SCR-2, SCR-3, SCR-4 solely through the gating circuit 30. In fact, as the Appellant points out on page 13 of the Appeal Brief, Barhorst’s second power source 20 as depicted in Figure 1 has no direct connection to the gating circuit 30. Therefore, the Examiner correctly finds that Barhorst’s second power source 20 is connected to the SCR network SCR-1, SCR-2, SCR-3, SCR-4. (See Ans. 22, ll. 15-18). Barhorst describes the gating circuit 30 as being connected to the gate electrodes of the silicon controlled rectifiers SCR-1, SCR-2, SCR-3, SCR-4 in Barhorst’s SCR network. (See Barhorst, col. 2, ll. 53-57). Barhorst also describes the gating circuit 30 as being connected to the gate electrode of Barhorst’s switch SCR-5 (id.), which is a component of second power supply means described by Barhorst. Therefore, the Examiner correctly finds that Barhorst describes control means connected to the SCR network and the second power supply means. (See Ans. 23, ll. 13-21). For these reasons, I Appeal 2010-011690 Application 11/142,593 14 join my colleagues in affirming the rejection of claim 26 under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Barhorst. Rejection of Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Being Unpatentable Over Schwartz, Barhorst and Heraly The Appellant argued in the Appeal Brief that “claim 2 requires that the SCR network provide current of a selected polarity from one of the first and second power supplies in accordance with the current setpoint value in both AC and DC more. This limitation is not addressed by the Examiner and is not taught by the cited references.” (App. Br. 15-16). The Examiner answered this argument by explaining how Heraly taught this feature. (See Ans. 26, ll. 4-17). The Appellant has not replied persuasively to the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the Reply Brief. Therefore, I would sustain the rejection of claim 2 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schwartz, Barhorst and Heraly.