LINCOLN GLOBAL, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 27, 2020

13802883 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 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.
13/802,883 03/14/2013 Joseph A. Daniel 22976/04173 3301
115182 7590 08/27/2020
Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP
1405 East 6th Street
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
HOANG, MICHAEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
4149
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2020 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):
ip@lincolnelectric.com
ipdocket@calfee.com
wfrick@calfee.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOSEPH A. DANIEL, DANIEL FLEMING, and JUDAH HENRY
____________

Appeal 2020-001621
Application 13/802,8831
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 20–25, and 32–41. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lincoln
Global, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2020-001621
Application 13/802,883

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s “invention relate[s] to welding work cells.” (Spec. ¶ 2.)
Claims 1 and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative. It recites (emphasis added):
1. A welder system, comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory computer readable medium storing
instructions for the processor to execute, the instructions
comprising:
a generate component that is configured to
automatically create or edit a welding sequence based on
welding procedure data from a weld performed before
employing the welding sequence;
a welding job sequencer component that is
configured to employ the welding sequence for a welding
work cell to perform at least a first weld and a second
weld, wherein the welding sequence defines at least:
a first weld schedule having at least one first
weld parameter; and
a second weld schedule having at least one
second weld parameter, wherein at least one of said
second weld parameter is different from said first
weld parameter; and
the welder system configured to employ the welding
sequence for the welding work cell to perform welds to assemble
a workpiece by automatically adjusting parameters on a welding
equipment within the welding work cell.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 5, 20–25, 32, and 35–41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Ivkovich (US 6,583,386 A1, iss.
June 24, 2003) and Kaufman (US 2006/0131291 A1, pub. June 22, 2006),
Appeal 2020-001621
Application 13/802,883

3
and alternatively, further in view of Asai (US 2009/0107969 A1, pub.
Apr. 30, 2009).
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
in view of Ivkovich, Kaufman, and Kamiya (JP2010075954A, pub.
Apr. 8, 2010), and alternatively, further in view of Asai.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness is a legal conclusion involving a determination of
underlying facts.
Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness
or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such
secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but
unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give
light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject
matter sought to be patented.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).
With regard to the scope and content of the prior art, the Examiner
finds that Ivkovich discloses
a generate component (CPU 334, PC display screen 336, and
Computer Node 300 of Fig. 4, working together, represent the
generate component) that is configured to automatically create or
edit a welding sequence based on welding procedure data from a
weld performed before employing the welding sequence (see
col. 15, lines 6-11, emphasis added, which states “Based on the
expected weld to be next completed, the arc-weld monitoring
with part-tracking system automatically sets the weld monitoring
schedule, which comprises the expected weld process
parameters and duration for each weld. Therefore, no external
Appeal 2020-001621
Application 13/802,883

4
setting of weld schedules is required.” Kaufman [sic, Ivkovich]
does not explicitly talk about this claimed feature, but since this
step of the disclosure is automatic, it is the Examiner’s position
that this section of the disclosure implies that a computer
algorithm of the generate component of Ivkovich has to process
“welding procedure data” that indicates a weld has been
performed/completed before the subsequent welding sequence
can be automatically set/created).

(Final Action 9–10.)
Appellant argues that “Ivkovich is directed to a weld monitoring
schedule, not a welding sequence, as claimed.” (Appeal Br. 12–13.)
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s “alleg[ation] that Ivkovich’s use of the
word ‘process’ in the phrase ‘expected weld process parameters’ implies that
Ivkovich ‘processes’ prior weld data is completely unsupported by Ivkovich.
Ivkovich is silent on how these monitoring parameters are determined or
created.” (Id. at 13.)
Ivkovich discloses “a weld monitoring system and method that
monitors and automatically coordinates information on the quality of each
weld in a workpiece having one or more welds.” (Ivkovich, Abstract.) In
relevant part, Ivkovich discloses:
The welder begins a welding operation in a welding cell
by putting or clamping one or more workpieces to be welded into
a fixture, which positions the workpiece or workpieces in the
proper orientation for welding. To create an individual weld, the
welder positions the welding torch to the location on the
workpiece or workpieces where the weld is to be begin, starts the
power supply to create a welding arc, moves the welding torch
to apply the weld to the location in a pre-specified manner, which
takes into account duration of the weld application and the length
of the weld, and then stops the welding process when the weld is
complete. In a typical welding operation, one or more sequential
welds are applied to a workpiece or workpieces. The welded
Appeal 2020-001621
Application 13/802,883

5
assembly is then removed or unclamped from the fixture and
transferred to the another [sic] welding cell for additional
welding operations or into a holding area for welded assemblies.
During the welding operation, the arc-weld monitoring
with part-tracking system obtains information about the welding
process from one or more weld sensor means including, but not
limited to, weld sensors that measure current, voltage, wire feed,
or gas flow, which are operably connected to a computer node.
. . . The measurements from the voltage, current, gas, and
wirefeed sensors can be used to identify different types of weld
defects such as grounding problems, workpiece fitup and
alignment problems, weld equipment problems, and gross
porosity. Thus, analysis of the data from the weld sensors
indicate whether a weld is satisfactory or faulty. The above weld
sensor means are easily applied to any commercially available
manual or robotic welding equipment.

(Id. at col. 13, ll. 32–64.)
Ivkovich further discloses:
For the coordinated part-tracking function of the arc-weld
monitoring with part-tracking system, the [computer processing
unit] monitors the information for each weld for a fault by means
of the one or more weld sensor means between the starting and
terminating of the monitoring by the switch means and
determines how that particular weld fits into the overall welding
scheme or schedule for the workpiece being welded. Thus, in a
coordinated and cooperative manner, the arc-weld monitoring
with part-tracking system performs weld monitoring, part-
tracking, reporting, and display of the resulting information to
the operator of the welding operation, inspector of the welded
assembly either during or at a time subsequent to the welding
operation, or the manual welder performing the welding
operation. Based on the expected weld to be next completed, the
arc-weld monitoring with part-tracking system automatically
sets the weld monitoring schedule, which comprises the expected
weld process parameters and duration for each weld. Therefore,
no external setting of weld schedules is required.

(Id. at col. 14, l. 60–col. 15, l. 11.)
Appeal 2020-001621
Application 13/802,883

6
It is clear from the above that the portions of Ivkovich relied on by the
Examiner relate to monitoring information for each weld for a fault using
information received from sensors. (See id. at col. 14, ll. 60–63.)
Claim 1 recites that a “welding sequence defines at least: a first weld
schedule . . . ; and a second weld schedule . . .; and [a] welder system
configured to employ the welding sequence for [a] welding work cell to
perform welds to assemble a workpiece.” In other words, in claim 1, a
welding sequence is used by the welder system to assemble a workpiece,
i.e., the welding sequence describes what the welder is to do.
The relied-on portions of Ivkovich, on the other hand, disclose what is
to be monitored. And although Appellant’s Specification discloses that in at
least one embodiment, “the welding job sequencer can monitor quality
measurables of a weld created by the operator,” (Spec. ¶ 56), claim 1, as
discussed above, recites that the welding sequence is employed “for the
welding work cell to perform welds,” i.e., to perform welds rather than to
monitor a weld for a fault.
Ivkovich also discloses “automatically set[ting] the weld monitoring
schedule.” (Ivkovich, col. 15, ll. 6–10.) Based on this, the Examiner
“implies that a computer algorithm of the generate component of Ivkovich
has to process ‘welding procedure data’ that indicates a weld has been
performed/completed before the subsequent welding sequence can be
automatically set/created.” (Final Action 9–10.) But Ivkovich explains that
the automatic setting of the weld monitoring schedule is “[b]ased on the
expected weld to be next completed.” (Ivkovich, col. 15, ll. 6–10.)
The Examiner does not direct us to a disclosure in Ivkovich teaching
that the expected weld to be next completed is more than the next weld on a
Appeal 2020-001621
Application 13/802,883

7
predetermined schedule of welds to be performed, i.e., it is not clear how
“the expected weld to be next completed” is related to the automatic creation
or editing of a welding sequence. For example, it is not clear from the cited
portions of Ivkovich why the automatic setting of the weld monitoring
schedule based on the expected next weld would automatically create or edit
a weld sequence (as recited in claim 1), as opposed to, e.g., simply go to the
next weld in the same weld sequence. Indeed, Ivkovich’s description of the
monitoring system validating the quality of a weld “per the weld schedule”
confirms that the system simply “sets the weld schedule for the next weld”
in the existing weld schedule “[w]hen the weld is determined to be good per
the weld schedule.” (Id. at col. 18, ll. 12–19; see Answer 5–7.)
Even if the data collected by the monitoring system in Ivkovich is
“welding procedure data” as recited in claim 1, there is no disclosure that
this monitoring data is used to create or edit the weld schedule or a welding
sequence. To the contrary, the system appears to simply go to the next weld
in the predetermined sequence when a weld is determined to be good, until
the last weld in the preset sequence has been made. (Ivkovich, col. 18,
ll. 19–28.) If monitoring indicates that a weld fails, the welding operation
can be stopped to correct the defective weld that caused the error. (Id. at
col. 18, ll. 29–34.) In sum, in the cited passages, the system appears to
simply increment the predetermined weld schedule for the next
predetermined weld in the sequence without any indication that the current
weld schedule or welding sequence was created or edited based on welding
procedure data from a weld performed before using the welding sequence.
Therefore, we do not agree that the cited portions of Ivkovich disclose
“a generate component that is configured to automatically create or edit a
Appeal 2020-001621
Application 13/802,883

8
welding sequence based on welding procedure data from a weld performed
before employing the welding sequence,” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner determines that Asai also discloses the generate
component limitation of claim 1. (Final Action 12.) Specifically, the
Examiner finds:
Asai discloses an “arc welding robot control system,” see
the title, which automatically edits a weaving cycle based on data
from a previous weaving cycle before employing the weaving
cycle that follows it. See the abstract.
This automated feature serves the advantage of enabling
“continuous change of welding conditions” and “welding with
high accuracy,” as disclosed in the abstract.

(Id.) Additionally, the Examiner determines that Asai
discloses (emphasis added) “a weaving operation controlling
device that outputs a signal of completion of one weaving cycle
every time when a welding torch completes to perform one
weaving cycle of a predetermined moving pattern.”
Therefore, Ivkovich’s welder system, modified in view of
Kaufman and Asai, would result in outputted signals occurring
at the completion of a prior weld, such as from a prior welding
sequence, i.e. reading on the limitation of claim 1, “based on
welding procedure data from a weld performed before employing
the welding sequence.” Subsequently, Ivkovich, modified in
view of Kaufman and Assai [sic], would automatically edit (the
parameters) of the following welding sequence.

(Answer 11.)
Appellant argues that “Asai clearly discloses that the welding
parameters are calculated before welding and based on an equation to yield
an accurate transition between points, not from ‘welding procedure data
from a weld performed before employing the welding sequence,’ as
described in detail in the Appeal Brief.” (Reply Br. 7.)
Appeal 2020-001621
Application 13/802,883

9
Asai discloses “[a]n arc welding robot control system.” (Asai,
Abstract.) In describing the “[c]alculation of to-be-changed welding
conditions,” Asai discloses modifying/editing of a welding sequence based
on an equation applied to the welding sequence.2 (See id. ¶¶ 47–48.) Asai
discloses that
[i]n the equation (1), a to-be-changed welding condition is
denoted as CWC1, an entire distance is denoted as ED, a
remaining distance is denoted as RD, a welding condition
difference is denoted as DWC, and a welding condition at a
welding condition changing start point is denoted as SWC. The
term {(ED-RD)/ED}xDWC becomes a correction value
corresponding to the distance from the welding condition
changing start point to the travelling position, and the welding
condition calculating device 33 determines to-be-changed
welding conditions at the travelling position by adding this
correction value to the welding conditions at the welding
condition changing start point.

(Id. ¶ 48.) For example,
if the welding speed of welding conditions at a welding condition
changing start point is 30 cm/min, the welding speed of welding
conditions at a welding condition changing finish point is 60
cm/min, the entire distance . . . is 100 mm and the remaining
distance . . . is 50 mm, the welding speed at the travelling point
becomes 45 cm/min, as follows.
45 cm/min={(100-50)/100}x(60-30)+30

(Id. ¶ 50.)

2 More particularly, Asai discloses modifying a “welding condition.” Asai
discloses that “[a]mong to-be-changed welding conditions at a travelling
position, a welding speed, a weaving cycle and a weaving amplitude.” (Asai
¶ 48.) Such welding conditions are part of a welding sequence, hence the
welding sequence would be modified.
Appeal 2020-001621
Application 13/802,883

10
In other words, paragraph 48 of Asai discloses that the predetermined
or preset welding sequence includes different sets of welding parameters
(similar to the claimed first and second weld schedule) and the
predetermined or preset sequence includes an equation used to control a
robot as it transitions between these two preprogrammed sets of welding
parameters. (See id. ¶ 48; see also id. Fig. 4.) The controlled transition
between two different preprogrammed weld schedules accomplished by
modifying the welding sequence itself, i.e., modifying SWC based on the
equation, does not teach that this transitional welding sequence is based on
welding procedure data from a weld performed before the welding sequence
was employed. At best, it might change a welding sequence based on a weld
performed during the same sequence. However, the Examiner does not
explain how the welding sequence itself can be the source of “data from a
weld performed before employing the welding sequence,” as recited in
claim 1. (Emphasis added.) We next ask if the equation itself is “based on
welding procedure data from a weld performed before employing the
welding sequence.” But Asai is silent on this point.
The Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398 . . . (2007), explained that, “because inventions in most,
if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since
uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be
combinations of what, in some sense, is already known,” “it can
be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a
person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. at 418–
19.

Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 991–92 (Fed. Cir.
2017). The Examiner does not sufficiently explain the reasoning with
rational underpinnings why the edited welding sequence is “based on
Appeal 2020-001621
Application 13/802,883

11
welding procedure data from a weld performed before employing the
welding sequence,” as recited in claim 1.
Therefore, we will reverse the rejection of claim 1. Independent
claim 20 contains similar language and for similar reasons we will reverse
the rejection of claim 20. For the same reasons, we will also reverse the
rejection of dependent claims 4, 5, 21–25, 32, and 35–41.
With regard to dependent claim 33 and 34, the Examiner does not rely
on Kamiya to cure the above discussed deficiency. (See Final Action 21.)
Therefore, we will also reverse the rejection of claims 33 and 34.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 20–25, and 32–41 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
Specifically:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 5, 20–25,
32, 35–41
103(a) Ivkovich,
Kaufman,
alternatively, Asai
1, 4, 5, 20–
25, 32, 35–
41
33, 34 103(a) Ivkovich,
Kaufman, Kamiya,
alternatively, Asai
33, 34
Overall Outcome 1, 4, 5, 20–
25, 32–41

REVERSED