Lincoln Global, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 13, 2020

14885708 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2020)

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. 14/885,708 10/16/2015 Brian Meess 2013-157-US-CNT 1084 141825 7590 08/13/2020 The Lincoln Electric Company 22801 Saint Clair Avenue Legal Department Cleveland, OH 44117 EXAMINER WARD, THOMAS JOHN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3761 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/13/2020 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): desiree_cunin@lincolnelectric.com ginger_mcghee@lincolnelectric.com ip@lincolnelectric.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BRIAN MEESS and JEFFREY KACHLINE ____________ Appeal 2020-000819 Application 14/885,708 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision in the Final Office Action (dated Apr. 25, 2019, hereinafter “Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Lincoln Global, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed June 11, 2019, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000819 Application 14/885,708 2 INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to a diffuser and contact tip assembly for use in gas metal arc welding or metal inert gas welding. Spec. para. 2. Claims 1, 12, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A diffuser assembly for a welding torch; said diffuser assembly comprising: a diffuser body having a first end and a second end positioned opposite said first end, said diffuser body having a longitudinal axis extending from said first end to said second end; an interior chamber positioned between said first end and said second end, where said interior chamber is open at said first end to permit a flow of a gas into said interior chamber from said first end and where said interior chamber is defined by a wall portion of said diffuser body; a plurality of openings in said wall portion of said interior chamber where said plurality of openings pass through said wall portion to permit said flow of said gas to exit said interior chamber through said plurality of openings; and a diffuser insert positioned within said interior chamber, where said diffuser insert seats within said interior chamber and where said diffuser insert is exposed to an outside of said diffuser body through said plurality of openings; wherein said diffuser insert has an insert bore which passes through said diffuser insert and is co-axial with said longitudinal axis of said diffuser body; wherein said diffuser insert has at least one flow feature on a sidewall of said diffuser insert which manipulates said flow of said gas to direct said flow of said gas from said interior chamber to said plurality of said openings, said at least one flow feature comprising a tapered surface of said sidewall tapered away from the wall portion of said diffuser body at an angle thereby forming a non-uniform gap distance between said tapered surface of said sidewall and the wall portion of said Appeal 2020-000819 Application 14/885,708 3 diffuser body, wherein said tapered surface extends axially to a longitudinal position of said plurality of openings. REJECTIONS I. The Examiner rejects claims 1–8 and 10–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jones,2 Frantzreb,3 and Bernard.4 II. The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, Frantzreb, Bernard, and Lebel.5 ANALYSIS Rejection I The Examiner finds that Jones discloses a diffuser assembly for weld torch 2 including, inter alia, diffuser 6 having interior chamber 18 between first and second ends and gas flow openings 20, contact tip 10, and a diffuser insert 26 (end face of contact tip 10)6 located within interior chamber 18. Final Act. 4 (citing Jones, Fig. 3). However, the Examiner finds that Jones fails to disclose that its diffuser insert includes on a sidewall a flow feature, as called for by each of independent claims 1 and 12. Id. at 5. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Frantzreb discloses guide means 10 for guiding 2 Jones, US 6,744,013 B2, issued June 1, 2004. 3 Frantzreb, Sr., US 3,878,354, issued Apr. 15, 1975. 4 Bernard et al., US 3,597,576, issued Aug. 3, 1971. 5 Lebel, US 4,529,863, issued July 16, 1985. 6 Like Appellant, we understand the Examiner is referring to the cylindrical, non-threaded portion of contact tip 10 located between threaded portion 28 and end face 26. See Appeal Br. 12; see also Jones, Fig. 4. Appeal 2020-000819 Application 14/885,708 4 shielding gas in welding operations including conical forwardly disposed (tapered) surface 17, cylindrical rearwardly disposed surface 18, and longitudinally disposed shielding gas directing grooves 19. Id. (citing Frantzreb, Fig. 1). The Examiner further finds that Bernard discloses an arc welding gun including head portion 11, head member 12 with gas ports 23 having a surface tapered away from a wall of gas nozzle 13 to form a non- uniform gap within chamber 24. Id. at 7 (citing Bernard, Fig. 2). Thus, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to “modify the end face 26 of the contact tip 10 of Jones” with Frantzreb’s grooves 19 and Bernard’s head member 12 “to provide improved gas shielding of the workpiece” and “to provide proper flow configuration of the shielding gas,” respectively. Id. at 6, 7. Appellant argues that the combined teachings of Jones, Frantzreb, and Bernard fail to disclose a flow feature in the sidewall of the diffuser insert, as called for by each of independent claims 1 and 12. See Appeal Br. 14–15. In particular, Appellant contends that because “[t]he flutes on Frantzreb’s guide means 10 are located at the rear half of the guide means,” when modifying Jones’s contact tip 10 to include Frantzreb’s flutes, the flutes “would not extend axially to a longitudinal position of the apertures 20 in Jones’s diffuser 6.” Id. at 16. Thus, according to Appellant, “one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no apparent reason to modify Jones’s contact tip 10 based on Frantzreb’s guide means 10.” Id. at 17. In response, the Examiner takes the position that the “surface” extending between contact area 24 and end face 26 of Jones’s contact tip 10 “extends axially a[long] longitudinal positions of the openings 20.” Examiner’s Answer (dated Sept. 19, 2019, hereinafter “Ans.”) 10 Appeal 2020-000819 Application 14/885,708 5 (illustrating the “surface” in annotated Figure 3 of Jones). To illustrate the location of the “surface,” the Examiner provides an annotated copy of Figure 3 of Jones, as shown below: The Examiner’s annotated version of Figure 3 of Jones illustrates the location of the “surface” along the region between contact area 24 and end face 26. Id. As noted supra, the Examiner’s reasoning to modify Jones’s end face 26 of contact tip 10 to include Frantzreb’s grooves 19 (and adjacent flutes 18 forming grooves 19) is “to provide improved gas shielding of the workpiece.” Final Act. 6 (emphasis added). However, Appellant is correct that providing “improved gas shielding of the workpiece” in Frantzreb is the result of the relationship between gas passages 25 and cylindrical forward extension 13. Appeal Br. 17 (citing Frantzreb, col. 5, ll. 22–25); see also Frantzreb, Figs. 1, 3. In other words, Frantzreb’s grooves 19 (and adjacent flutes 18 forming grooves 19), which form passages 25, provide improved Appeal 2020-000819 Application 14/885,708 6 gas shielding in conjunction with cylindrical forward extension 13. In contrast, the Examiner’s modification of Jones’s end face 26 “to provide improved gas shielding of the workpiece” relies only on Frantzreb’s grooves 19 (and adjacent flutes 18 forming grooves 19), which extend axially to a longitudinal location of Jones’s openings 20, i.e., the area noted as “surface” by the Examiner in the annotated Figure 3 of Jones shown above. The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how Frantzreb’s grooves 19 (and adjacent flutes 18 forming grooves 19), extending axially to a longitudinal location of Jones’s openings 20, “provide[s] improved gas shielding of the workpiece” in the absence of a cylindrical section similar to Frantzreb’s cylindrical forward extension 13. Hence, the Examiner does not provide adequate support for the allegation that the inclusion of only Frantzreb’s grooves 19 (and adjacent flutes 18 forming grooves 19) would, contrary to Frantzreb’s disclosure, serve “to provide improved gas shielding of the workpiece.” Accordingly, the Examiner’s articulated reason for combining the teachings of Jones and Frantzreb is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence of the record before us. The Examiner’s use of the disclosure of Bernard does not remedy the deficiency of the combination discussed supra. See Final Act. 6–7. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1–8 and 10–16 as unpatentable over Jones, Frantzreb, and Bernard. Rejection II With respect to the rejection of claims 9 and 17, the Examiner’s use of the Lebel disclosure does not remedy the deficiency of the Jones, Frantzreb, Appeal 2020-000819 Application 14/885,708 7 and Bernard combination discussed supra. See Final Act. 8–9. As to the rejection of claims 18–20, the Examiner relies on the same unsupported reasoning to combine the teachings of Jones, Frantzreb, and Bernard discussed supra, which is not remedied by the Examiner’s use of the Lebel disclosure. See id. at 9–12. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 9 and 17–20 as unpatentable over Jones, Frantzreb, Bernard, and Lebel. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8, 10–16 103 Jones, Frantzreb, Bernard 1–8, 10–16 9, 17–20 103 Jones, Frantzreb, Bernard, Lebel 9, 17–20 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED