Ex Parte Christensen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2013

11614288 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte TOMMY CHRISTENSEN, PEI-CHUNG WANG,
SCOTT E. DEAL, THOMAS LILJA, and PETER BOGREN
____________________

Appeal 2011-013298
Application 11/614,288
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-013298
Application 11/614,288
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
21-25. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to a single drive and source for adjacently
clamping and resistance welding. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
21. A system for clamping and resistance spot welding
a plurality of workpieces, said system comprising:
a connecting plate for mounting clamping and welding
mechanisms;
a clamp for applying a clamping force to the workpieces
at a first location; said clamp including a fixed backing plate
fixed on the connecting plate and positioned beneath the
workpieces for supporting the workpieces, and a movable
clamping element positioned above the workpieces and
movable into contact with the workpieces to clamp the
workpieces against the fixed backing plate;
first and second electrodes for engaging the workpieces
at a second location on the workpieces that is adjacent to but
spaced from the first position on the workpieces,
said second electrode being fixed on the connecting plate
beneath the workpieces at the second position for contacting
with the workpieces when the workpieces are supported by the
fixed backing plate and for passing a weld current through the
workpieces to create the spot weld;
said first electrode being positioned above the
workpieces and movable into contact with the workpieces at the
second location;
a clamp swing arm having the movable clamping element
mounted thereon, and said clamp swing arm being pivotally
mounted on the connecting plate for swinging the movable
clamping element into clamping contact with the workpieces
when the clamp swing arm is pivoted;
Appeal 2011-013298
Application 11/614,288
3
an electrode swing arm having the first electrode
mounted thereon, and said electrode swing arm being pivotally
mounted on the connecting plate for swinging the first electrode
into contact with the workpieces when the electrode swing arm
is pivoted;
a single power source for driving the swinging movement
of both of the swing arms;
and a pin and slot drive mechanism connecting the single
power source with the two swing arms and operating the swing
arms such that the clamp swing arm is pivoted to obtain
clamping contact of the movable clamping element with the
workpieces prior to the contact ofthe first electrode with the
workpieces so that the workpieces are effectively clamped
together for contact by the first electrode and the clamping
contact occurs at the first location which is adjacent to but
spaced from the second location on the workpieces where the
spot weld is formed.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Aoyama
Garza
US 6,008,463
US 6,768,078 B1
Dec. 28, 1999
Jul. 27, 2004
Schuhen US 2005/0029233 A1 Feb. 10, 2005

REJECTIONS
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Garza, Schuhen and Aoyama. Ans. 5.

OPINION
We agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s factual findings
and conclusions of law. Ans. 5-9. We write further only to supplement the
Examiner’s response to the issues raised by Appellants.
Appeal 2011-013298
Application 11/614,288
4
In rejecting claim 21, we recognize that reference numeral 64 was not
the reference numeral most indicative of the Examiner’s position. Ans. 10.
However, since it is apparent that the Examiner was interpreting one of the
clamping electrode pairs 34, 36 of Garza as the recited “clamp” and the
other as the recited “electrodes” (see Examiner’s discussion of fig. 3A), we
cannot consider the citation of reference numeral 64 in place of 34 or 36 as
an error warranting reversal of the Examiner’s rejection. As the Examiner
correctly points out, there is no language in the claim preventing the recited
clamp from also having or being an electrode, nor is there any language in
the claim preventing the recited electrodes from also having or being a
clamp. Ans. 7. It is abundantly clear that Garza’s clamping electrodes can
perform both functions:
in FIG. 4B, both pairs of electrodes 34,36 can now clamp
simultaneously while the switch 50 directs the electric
current to the first pair of electrodes 34 or the second pair of
electrodes 36. Therefore, the second pair of electrodes 36
can hold the workpieces 12 while the first pair of electrodes
34 welds the workpieces 12, or vice-versa.
Col. 5, ll. 24-29; contra App. Br. 11.
While Appellants interpret their motor as the recited “power source”
(App. Br. 4), like the Examiner, we see no limitations recited in the claim
requiring such a narrow and restrictive interpretation of that term. See App.
Br. 11. Appellants chose to use broader language than is used in the
Specification and we must not import limitations from the Specification into
the claims. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870,
875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner’s interpretation of Garza’s transformer
46 as the recited “single power source” (Ans. 6) stands uncontroverted.
Appeal 2011-013298
Application 11/614,288
5
Garza does not describe the structural details of the clamping
electrodes. Schuhen describes electrodes that could be used for such a
purpose. The Examiner never proposes to interpret each individual clamping
electrode as the recited clamp and electrodes. But, this is the only position
the Appellants address. App. Br. 27. Again, the Examiner’s position stands
uncontroverted.
Like the Examiner, we fail to see the relevance of Appellants’
arguments pointing out what Aoyama was never alleged to teach. App. Br.
12; Ans. 7. There being only one mention of a “pin” in claim 21, the
mechanism modified by that term being responsible for positioning the
swing arms, we do not share Appellants’ view that the Examiner’s reference
to a “positioning pin” is mysterious because the Examiner did not quote the
claim language ipsissimis verbis. App. Br. 13. The recitation of a pin and
slot drive mechanism does not require a mechanism that relies on a single
pin to actuate both swing arms as in Appellants’ Specification. Incorporating
Aoyama’s pin into the Garza and Schuhen teachings results in a mechanism
that performs all the recited functions (contra App. Br. 14), mainly because
those functions recited are already performed by Garza, with or without such
a pin, as discussed above.
We recognize that the combination proposed by the Examiner results
in a structure that may be very different from that disclosed in Appellants’
Specification. However, due to the broad recitations of claim 21, the
objective reach of claim 21 includes the combination proposed by the
Examiner. Appellants never contest that such a combination would not have
been obvious. Thus, claim 21 is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419-420 (2007) (“What matters is
Appeal 2011-013298
Application 11/614,288
6
the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is
invalid under § 103.”)
Appellants’ comment concerning claim 25 does not amount to an
argument for separate patentability. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) requires
more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the
claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were
not found in the prior art. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011). No arguments are presented for claims 22-24.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.

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

mls