Ex Parte Farah et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 1, 201612648385 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/648,385 12/29/2009 Samir F. Farah 64956 7590 03/03/2016 HAHN LOESER I LINCOLN ONE GOJO PLAZA SUITE 300 AKRON, OH 44311-1076 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 201990.05681 3722 EXAMINER MAYE,AYUBA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/03/2016 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): patents@hahnlaw.com desiree _ cunin @lincolnelectric.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte SAMIR F. FARAH and ANDREUP. MECKLER Appeal2014-001346 Application 12/648,385 Technology Center 3700 Before LINDA E. HORNER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Samir F. Farah and Andreu P. Meckler (Appellants) seek review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. BACKGROUND The disclosed subject matter "relates to arc welders and, more particularly, to engine arc welders." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 13, and 22 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below, with emphasis added: Appeal2014-001346 Application 12/648,385 1. An engine welder capable of supplying up to a full electrical power capacity, said engine welder compnsmg: an engine capable of providing rotating mechanical drive power; a single rotor having at least one field winding wound on a stack of iron laminations configured to be electrically driven at a saturation current which fully saturates a generator magnetics of the engine welder; a rotatable drive shaft operatively connecting said rotor to said engine; and a single stator surrounding said single rotor and having a first stator welding winding, at least a second stator welding winding, and at least a first stator auxiliary winding, wherein said engine, said single rotor, and said single stator are configured to supply said full electrical power capacity to said first stator welding winding as said rotor is driven at said saturation current. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL 1. Claims 1---6, 9, 10, and 13-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fosbinder (US 2008/0264922 Al, published Oct. 30, 2008) and Takeda (US 5,936,320, issued Aug. 10, 1999). 2. Claims 7, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fosbinder, Takeda, and Albrecht (US 2007 /0187376 Al, published Aug. 16, 2007). 2 Appeal2014-001346 Application 12/648,385 DISCUSSION Rejection 1 - The rejection of claims 1-6, 9, 10, and 13-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) A. Independent Claim 1 (and Dependent Claims 2---6, 9, and 10) Claim 1 recites that "said engine, said single rotor, and said single stator are configured to supply said full electrical power capacity to said first stator welding winding as said rotor is driven at said saturation current." Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Fosbinder teaches this limitation. Ans. 5 (citing Fosbinder i-fi-f 19, 20, 38, 40, 41, 44, and 53). Appellants argue that Fosbinder "describes a configuration to adjust various loads on an engine, a generator, a compressor, or a combination thereof, in response to sensor feedback and a priority control scheme." Appeal Br. 14. Appellants contend that, as to maximum power capacity, Fosbinder discloses: that the priority control 78 may compare the maximum power output of the engine 12 to the power characteristics of the devices and regulate the speed of the engine 12 and the power consumed by the devices, and that the priority control 78 may shut down or reduce the power consumed by a low priority device, and maintain a sufficient power output to higher priority devices. Id. (citing Fosbinder i141). Appellants argue, however, that "Fosbinder does not teach being able to provide all of the maximum power that can be generated by an engine welder as electrical power to a first stator welding winding" and that "Fosbinder says nothing about doing this by configuring a rotor to be driven at a saturation current .... " Id. (emphasis omitted). 1 1 As to the "first stator welding winding," Appellants contend that 3 Appeal2014-001346 Application 12/648,385 Appellants contend that "[i]n fact, Fosbinder says nothing about a saturation current." Id. (emphasis omitted). For these reasons, Appellants contend that the Examiner has not made a prima facie case of obviousness for independent claim 1. Id. at 16. In response, the Examiner repeats the same findings and relies on the same paragraphs from Fosbinder to address the identified limitation in claim 1. Compare Ans. 13-15, with id. at 5. For Appellants' reasons as set forth above, we agree that, on the record here, the Examiner has not provided sufficient explanation of the findings regarding the claim language at issue to present a prima facie case of obviousness as to claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner has not adequately explained (and it is unclear from our review) how the relied-upon disclosures teach or suggest (1) that the device in Fosbinder is "configured to supply said full electrical power capacity to [a] first stator welding winding" or (2) that the rotor is driven at "saturation current." For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor the rejection of claims 2---6, 9, and 10, which depend from claim 1. "with prior engine welders, users have had to combine multiple welding outputs of an engine welder in parallel in order to access the full electrical power capacity of the engine welder for a single welding operation" and that the claimed invention "overcomes this limitation by configuring the engine, and the rotor and stator of the generator, to ... allow the full electrical power capacity of the engine welder to be applied to a first stator welding winding." Appeal Br. 14. 4 Appeal2014-001346 Application 12/648,385 B. Independent Claim 13 (and Dependent Claims 14--21) Claim 13 recites, inter alia, a "means for supplying said maximum electrical power capacity to said first welding output means via a first stator welding winding and via a single rotor ... configured to be driven at a saturation current to fully saturate a generator magnetics of the engine welder." Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Fosbinder teaches this limitation. Ans. 7 (citing Fosbinder i-fi-f 19, 20, 30-34, 38, 40, 41, 44, and 53). Appellants contend that Fosbinder does not disclose this limitation for the same reasons discussed above. See Appeal Br. 11-16. The Examiner relies on the same response discussed above. See Ans. 13-15. For Appellants' reasons as set forth above, we agree that, on the record here, the Examiner has not provided sufficient explanation of the findings regarding the limitation at issue to present a prima facie case of obviousness as to claim 13. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 13, nor the rejection of claims 14--21, which depend from claim 13. C. Independent Claim 22 (and Dependent Claims 23-28) Claim 22 recites, inter alia, "driving at least one field winding wound on a stack of iron laminations of said single rotor at a saturation current to fully saturate a generator magnetics of the engine welder." Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Fosbinder teaches this limitation. Ans. 9 (citing Fosbinder i-fi-f 19, 25-28, 30-36, 40, 41, and 44). Appellants contend that Fosbinder does not disclose this limitation for the same reasons discussed above. See Appeal Br. 11-16. The Examiner relies on the same response discussed above. See Ans. 13-15. 5 Appeal2014-001346 Application 12/648,385 For Appellants' reasons as set forth above (at least as to the requirement, in claim 1, that "said rotor is driven at said saturation current"), we agree that, on the record here, the Examiner has not provided sufficient explanation of the findings regarding the limitation at issue to present a prima facie case of obviousness as to claim 22. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 22, nor the rejection of claims 23-28, which depend from claim 22. Rejection 2 - The rejection of claim 7, 8, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Claims 7, 8, 11, and 12 depend from claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on Albrecht to remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Fosbinder and Takeda, discussed above with regard to claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7, 8, 11, and 12. DECISION We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation