Ex Parte Hillen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

12967667 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

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.
12/967,667 12/14/2010 Edward Hillen 201990.05770 1001
64956 7590 04/04/2017
HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN
200 Public Square, Suite 2800
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
WARD, THOMAS JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
patents@hahnlaw.com
ip @ lincolnelectrie .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD HILLEN and DAVID KEMPERT
Appeal 2015-007662
Application 12/967,667
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Edward Hillen and David Kempert (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 23 and 25—30. Claims
1—22 and 24 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-007662
Application 12/967,667
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method of retracting a
welding wire into a welding gun. Claim 23, reproduced below, is
illustrative:
23. A method of retracting a welding wire into a welding gun
after completion of a welding operation driven by a manual
welding apparatus comprising the steps of:
accessing a setup menu associated with the welding
apparatus to define a user-definable retract delay time or using a
retract delay time defined by a previous user;
depressing a welding gun trigger to initiate forward
feeding of a welding wire by rotational engagement of at least
one welding wire feeder drive roller by communicating a start
signal to a wire drive motor in operative connection with the at
least one wire feeder drive roller and initiating a welding arc to
begin the welding operation;
releasing the welding gun trigger and detecting when the
welding arc is extinguished to determine a start time of the
delay time; and
automatically retracting the welding wire without user
intervention to a location within the welding gun after the
expiration of the user-definable wait delay time by
communicating an end signal to the wire drive motor in
operative connection with the at least one wire feeder drive
roller and reversing the direction of the welding wire by
rotational engagement of at least one welding wire feeder drive
roller with the welding wire by having at least one welding wire
feeder drive roller rotating in a direction opposite of the
direction employed when forward feeding the welding wire.
2
Appeal 2015-007662
Application 12/967,667
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claims 23, 25—27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rozmarynowski (US 2011/0309061 Al, published Dec.
22, 2011) in view of Zeller (US 3,277,269, issued Oct. 4, 1966); and
(ii) claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Rozmarynowski in view of Zeller and Hackl (US 7,015,419 B2, issued Mar.
21,2006).
All other rejections present in the Final Action are mooted by the
cancelation of claims 1—22 and 24 in an Amendment after Final Action
dated December 19, 2014, and entered by the Examiner in an Advisory
Action dated January 22, 2015.
ANALYSIS
Claims 23, 25—27, 29, and 30—Rozmarynowski/Zeller
The Examiner finds that Rozmarynowski discloses all steps set forth
in independent claim 23, including “a delay to receive indication [that a]
switch is actuated and then sending a command to rotate [a] wire drive” to
retract the wire. Final Act. 5. The Examiner notes that Rozmarynowski
does not disclose a step of “releasing the welding gun trigger and detecting
when the welding arc is extinguished to determine a start time of a user-
definable wait delay time.” Id. The Examiner further finds that Zeller
discloses a method for arc welding that includes a wire stop delay relay, or
wait delay time, and concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Rozmarynowski to include this feature, in order to “provide a[n] efficient
and controllable time for stopping and starting a welding process.” Id.
3
Appeal 2015-007662
Application 12/967,667
In response to various arguments advanced by Appellants in
traversing the rejection, the Examiner further takes the position that
the combination teaches ... an automatic retract method once the
user has either release [d] or pushed the pushing trigger 32. The
actual retract operation of Rozmarynowski... is automatic once
the configuration is in operation. The operation of the trigger
allows for the automatic retraction of the wire once the trigger is
pushed. . .
and
Zeller teaches ... a user defined delay seeing as the user in [sic,
is] interactive with the machine in order for the delay to take
action.
Ans. 3^4.
Appellants reply that their use of the term “automatically,” in
conjunction with the recitation “without user intervention,” means that the
retraction will occur as a matter of course after the passage of a user-
definable retract delay time, which is also a limitation set forth in claim 23.
Reply Br. 7. Rozmarynowski requires a user to actuate a switch to initiate
the wire retraction therein. Appeal Br. 9; Rozmarynowski, Fig. 5. Zeller
appears to provide for wire retraction without a specific user intervention,
but, as pointed out by Appellants, Zeller fails to disclose an actuation of the
wire retraction based on a user-defined delay timed from a detection of the
welding arc being extinguished. Appeal Br. 10. Instead, the delay imposed
by Zeller is based on the amount of time it takes in order for a motor to fully
come to a halt. Id. (citing Zeller, col. 8,11. 10-17).
Based on these teachings, we agree with Appellants that neither
Rozmarynowski nor Zeller, nor a combination of the teachings thereof,
renders obvious a method in which wire retraction is effected automatically,
4
Appeal 2015-007662
Application 12/967,667
without user intervention, with a user-defined delay imposed, the delay time
being started upon detection of the extinguishment of the welding arc.
The rejection of claim 23 as being unpatentable over Rozmarynowski
and Zeller is thus not sustained. Claims 25—27, 29, and 30 depend from
claim 23, and the same rejection directed to those claims likewise is not
sustained.
Claim 28—Rozmarynowski/Zeller/Hackl
The Examiner does not rely on Hackl in any manner that remedies the
deficiencies noted above with respect to the combination of the teachings of
Rozmarynowski and Zeller. The rejection is not sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 23 and 25—30 are reversed.
REVERSED
5