Ex Parte WiryadinataDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 9, 201713178168 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 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. 13/178,168 07/07/2011 Indra Budiman Wiryadinata 60129/YOD (ITWO:0505) 7885 52145 7590 05/11/2017 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) P.O. BOX 692289 HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER NORTON, JOHN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/11/2017 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): docket@fyiplaw.com sinclair@fyiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte INDRA BUDIMAN WIRYADINATA Appeal 2015-006726 Application 13/178,168 Technology Center 3700 Before JAMES P. CALVE, LEE L. STEPINA, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of claims 1—10. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal 2015-006726 Application 13/178,168 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below. 1. A system, comprising: a welding power supply having a wireless communication receiver; and a wireless sensor module integrated with an article of clothing, wherein the wireless sensor module comprises: a motion sensor or a position sensor coupled to a processor of the wireless sensor module and configured to detect a defined motion or defined position of a welding operator; memory circuitry coupled to the processor and configured to store the defined motion or the defined position and an adjustment of an operating parameter of the welding power supply corresponding to the defined motion or the defined position; and a wireless communication device coupled to the processor and configured to transmit the adjustment of the operating parameter to the wireless communication receiver of the welding power supply. REJECTIONS Claims 1—7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karakas (US 2007/0187378 Al, pub. Aug. 16, 2007). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karakas and Lepeltier (US 6,337,458 Bl, iss. Jan. 8, 2002). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karakas and Blankenship (US 6,624,388 Bl, iss. Sept. 23, 2003). Claims 1—7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karakas and David (US 6,516,289 B2, iss. Feb. 4, 2003). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karakas, David, and Lepeltier. 2 Appeal 2015-006726 Application 13/178,168 Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karakas, David, and Blankenship. ANALYSIS Claims 1—7 and 10 as unpatentable over Karakas The Examiner found that Karakas discloses a welding power supply, substantially as claimed including motion or position sensors 14, 16 coupled to a processor (controller 20) and a wired communication system. Final Act. 2. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to use a wireless setup as a well-known communication system that eliminates the need for a physical wire connection. Id. The Examiner also determined that “it would have been obvious ... to move the sensors of Karakas from the welding head to a glove as a matter of design since no advantage is seen in choosing one location over the other.” Id. We agree with Appellant that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to integrate sensors 14, 16 on welding head 4 of Karakas into a wireless sensor module on an article of clothing as a matter of mere design choice. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues persuasively that integration of motion and position sensors into an article of clothing, as recited in claim 1, allows more finely-tuned adjustment of welding parameters based on the motion or position of a welding operator as detected by the sensors based on the direct movement of the operator’s body. Id. This arrangement allows the adjustment of welding parameters with the movement of a foot or gloved hand while holding the torch steady as when a user holds a welding torch in one hand and wears a glove with sensors on the other hand to enable continuous, uninterrupted use of the welding torch. Id. at 9. 3 Appeal 2015-006726 Application 13/178,168 Claim 1 recites that the motion and position sensor are “configured to detect a defined motion or defined position of a welding operator” versus a welding torch, as taught by Karakas. Therefore, the claims do recite features of this configuration contrary to the Examiner’s findings. See Ans. 8—9. In addition, Appellant discloses that this configuration allows wireless sensor modules 32 to detect various movements of the welding operator and adjust a welding parameter associated with that movement, allowing customization of control for different welding operators. Spec. 19, 20, 22—26. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1—7 and 10. Claim 8 as unpatentable over Karakas and Lepeltier The Examiner found that Karakas discloses that sensor 16 senses acceleration and determined that it would have been obvious to use an accelerometer as recited in claim 8 and taught by Lepeltier on the welding system of Karakas as a matter of design to sense acceleration. Final Act. 4. Appellant argues that Lepeltier does not cure the deficiencies of Karakas as to claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. Appeal Br. 13—14. We agree. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8. Claim 9 as unpatentable over Karakas and Blankenship The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to use radio frequency or infrared communications as recited in claim 9 and taught by Blankenship as a matter of design with the welding system of Karakas to relay information from the sensors. Final Act. 4. Blankenship does not cure the deficiencies of Karakas as to claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. See Appeal Br. 14—15. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9. 4 Appeal 2015-006726 Application 13/178,168 Claims 1—7 as unpatentable over Karakas and David Appellant argues claims 1, 3, 7, and 10 as a group. Appeal Br. 15—23. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 3, 7, and 10 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We address separately Appellant’s arguments as to dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 6. Claims 1, 3, 7, and 10 The Examiner found that Karakas discloses a welding power supply, substantially as claimed including motion or position sensors 14, 16 coupled to a processor (controller 20) and a wired communication system. Final Act. 4. The Examiner also found that Karakas discloses sensors attached to welding head 4 which would be adjacent to and move in conjunction with a glove used by a welder to hold welding head 4. Id. at 4—5. The Examiner determined “it would have been obvious ... to move the sensors of Karakas from the welding head to a glove as a matter of design since no advantage is seen in choosing one location over the other.” Id. at 5. We again hold that the Examiner’s rationale is not supported by a rational underpinning for the reasons discussed above for the rejection of claim 1 over Karakas. Alternatively, the Examiner found that David discloses a glove that incorporates a motion sensor with a wireless communication device, and determined it would have been obvious “to replace the sensor of Karakas with that used in David to allow motion to depend on the user’s movements instead of on the movements of the welding apparatus.” Id. at 5. Appellant argues that David’s medical monitoring device is non- analogous art and there is no teaching to adjust welding parameters based on the detected motion of a welder. Appeal Br. 15—19; Reply Br. 5. 5 Appeal 2015-006726 Application 13/178,168 First, we find that David is reasonably pertinent to the problem to be solved by Appellant. Appellant addressed the problem of adjusting welding parameters on a welding system that is remote from an operator by detecting operator movements via sensors on clothing worn by the operator, sending that information to the welding system, and adjusting parameters of the welding system based on that information. Spec. Tflf 2, 4—6, 13, 14. Similarly, David is directed to the problem of acquiring, storing, and transmitting information regarding conditions of a person including motions to remote locations that can adjust parameters and functions of devices that are located with the person. David, 1:14—20, 4:40-5:20. Motion and force measuring sensors detect movements of a person wearing glove or sleeve 10. Id. at 4:40—50. Central control unit 24 collects, stores, and transmits this information via radio frequency, infrared, or other wireless transmissions to a remote surveillance center that adjusts functions and features of glove 10. Id. at 4:51—5:2. That this data pertains to the physiological conditions of a person rather than welding does not negate David’s relevance to solving the problem confronted by Appellant, particularly when the claims relate to detecting the motions or positions of a person who is engaged in welding. David detects motions and positions of people who are engaged in various activities, including workplace activities. Id. at 1:15—20. David teaches that a person’s position and movement can be detected by placing sensors in clothing worn by the person and the data can be sent to a remote location where it is used to control devices at the person’s location. The Examiner reasonably determined this feature would allow a welder’s movements to be detected and transmitted wirelessly to a remote welding system to adjust parameters of the welding device in Karakas. Final Act. 5. 6 Appeal 2015-006726 Application 13/178,168 Appellant is correct that David does not teach the use of its system for welding. However, Karakas uses sensors 14, 16 to detect a welding device’s movements and transmit that information to remote welding system 6 that adjusts welding parameters, as claimed. Karakas 66—80. David teaches how to accomplish such remote monitoring using a glove with sensors and then transmit the information wirelessly to a remote location that controls functions and devices at the user’s location. The Appellant has attacked the references individually rather than their combined teachings. Appellant’s argument that neither reference provides a motivation to combine does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s stated reasons for combining the teachings of both references. Appeal Br. 19; Ans. 12; Final Act. 5. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1,3,7, and 10. Claims 2 and 4 We agree with the Examiner that Karakas and David render obvious placing sensors in a glove as required by claim 2 for the same reasons as discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 1. We are not persuaded, however, that these teachings provide motivation to place sensors in a shoe or boot as recited in claim 4. The Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been obvious because “foot movement affecting welding would already be known in the art and Karakas already teaches changing parameters through movements” is not supported by evidence or rational underpinning. Final Act. 5. Karakas places sensors on a device held in a person’s hand. David places sensors on a glove. Neither reference senses position or movement of a foot for welding or any other reason. The only basis for this modification is Appellant’s disclosure. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 2, but not of claim 4. 7 Appeal 2015-006726 Application 13/178,168 Claim 5 Modification of the welding system of Karakas with the portable and self-contained glove, sensors, and wireless communication device (central control unit 24) of David renders obvious a power module for the wireless sensor module. Final Act. 5; David, 4:51—65, Fig. 2. Appellant’s argument that David does not teach this feature does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that David teaches a wireless communication device that would be powered by a power supply. In this regard, David discloses that central control unit 24 digitizes, stores, and transmits by RF, IR, or other wireless transmission data from each sensor. David, 4:61—65. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 5. Claim 6 The Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious “to use a photovoltaic cell as a power source as a matter of design as no particular advantage can be seen from using it over other conventional power sources” is not supported by a rational underpinning. Final Act. 5. Appellant argues persuasively that a photovoltaic cell is not a matter of design choice because it can be integrated into clothing and, unlike batteries, does not need to be removed for recharging or replacement. Appeal Br. 23; Spec. 128. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6. Claim 8 as unpatentable over Karakas, David, and Lepeltier Appellant argues that Lepeltier does not cure the deficiencies of Karakas as to claim 1. Appeal Br. 23—24. Because we sustain the rejection of claim 1 over Karakas and David, there is no deficiency for Lepeltier to cure. We sustain the rejection of claim 8. 8 Appeal 2015-006726 Application 13/178,168 Claim 9 as unpatentable over Karakas, David, and Blankenship The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to use wireless communications of Blankenship with the welding system of Karakas to relay information from the sensors. Final Act. 6. Appellant argues that Karakas teaches wired sensors 14, 16 so it would not have been obvious to replace a wired connection with wireless communications. Appeal Br. 24—25. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive in view of our holding that it would have been obvious to modify Karakas to place sensors on a glove as taught by David with David’s central control unit 24 that includes a wireless communications capability via radio frequency or infrared. David, 4:61—65. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 9. DECISION We reverse the rejection of claims 1—7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Karakas. We reverse the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Karakas and Lepeltier. We reverse the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Karakas and Blankenship. We affirm the rejection of claims 1—3, 5, 7, and 10 and reverse the rejection of claims 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Karakas and David. We affirm the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Karakas, David, and Lepeltier. We affirm the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Karakas, David, and Blankenship. 9 Appeal 2015-006726 Application 13/178,168 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation