Ex Parte Holverson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2017

13916676 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 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.
13/916,676 06/13/2013 Todd E. Holverson ITW 14113.03 4629
23721 7590 08/25/2017
GEORGE R. CORRIGAN
CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE
2168 COLLADAY POINT DRIVE
STOUGHTON, WI53589
EXAMINER
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2017 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):
george.corrigan@corrigan.pro
gcorrigan@new.rr.com
kari.brekke@corrigan.pro
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TODD E. HOLVERSON, JAMES L. UECKER,
ROBERT R. DAVIDSON, and RICHARD M. HUTCHISON
Appeal 2015-007950
Application 13/916,676
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Todd E. Holverson et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 57—65.2 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Illinois Tool Works Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 1—55 are canceled, and claim 56 has been allowed. Id. at 5.
Appeal 2015-007950
Application 13/916,676
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosure relates to the start of a pulse welding process.
Spec. 1:3—4. Claim 57, reproduced below from page 12 (Claims Appendix)
of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
57. A method of pulse welding process, comprising
providing pulse type welding power and in the event that a
short occurs, reducing a welding current prior to the short
clearing, thereby reducing spatter.
REJECTIONS
Claims 57—59, 62, and 63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
being anticipated by Stava (US 6,501,049 B2, issued Dec. 31, 2002).
Claims 57, 58, 62, and 65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
being anticipated by Parks (US 4,954,691, issued Sept. 4, 1990).
Claims 59 and 63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Parks.
Claims 60, 61, and 64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over either of Stava and Parks in combination with Geng
(US 2001/0035399 Al, published Nov. 1, 2001).
ANALYSIS
Claim Construction
Appellants assert that the “claims are patentable because the prior art
does not show reducing the current prior to a short circuit while pulse
welding. Independent claims 57 and 62 both require that the current be
2
Appeal 2015-007950
Application 13/916,676
reduced prior to a short circuit while pulse welding.'” Appeal Br. 9
(emphases added); see also Reply Br. 1—3 (discussing “undesired” short
circuits Appellants allege to be avoided by the claimed methods). We
disagree with Appellants’ proposed construction of the independent claims.
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In
re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under
the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their
ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Appellants’ Specification “relates to the start of a pulse welding
process,” which Appellants describe as being “one of the more challenging
aspects of pulse welding.” Spec. 1:3—4, 11—12. The disclosed starting
process “provides for starting the pulse welding process by providing a
constant current (CC) type power output to initiate the arc, followed by a
constant voltage (CV) type power to maintain the arc, and then transitioning
to a pulse type power to perform the pulse process.” Id. at 3:30-33.
The only disclosure of determining that a short circuit is imminent is
during the initial constant current power mode, which is used to initiate the
arc and remains the active power mode for a fixed period of time thereafter
before transitioning to the constant voltage power mode. Id. at 5:22—26,
6:6—7. One alternative for triggering the transition from the constant current
power mode to the constant voltage power mode “provides for sensing dP/dt
to sense when the short (that exist[s] prior to the arc being formed) is about
3
Appeal 2015-007950
Application 13/916,676
to break and then reduce the current so as to avoid a flare up or spatter.” Id.
at 6:1—3. The constant voltage power mode is maintained for some period of
time before transitioning to the pulse power mode and starting the pulse
welding process. Id. at 6:10-21.
Thus, the only disclosure of reducing the current prior to a short
circuit is during the constant current power mode before the pulse welding
process begins. Appellants’ suggested construction that weld current is
reduced prior to a short circuit while pulse welding is not supported by or
consistent with the Specification. Accordingly, we construe the claims as
requiring the step of reducing weld current prior to a short circuit clearing
and the step of providing pulse type welding power, but not requiring these
steps to take place simultaneously. We further note that independent claim
62 expressly requires the step of providing pulse type welding power to be
performed after reducing the welding output current. See Appeal Br. 12—13
(Claims App.).
Anticipation Based on Stava
Appellants argue claims 57—59, 62, and 63 together. Appeal Br. 9-10.
We select claim 57 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Stava discloses all of the elements of claim
57. Final Act. 2—3. Appellants argue that in pulse welding, the “welding
current. . . alternates between a background current and a higher peak
current.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing Spec. 1:1—4). Appellants also argue that no
short-circuiting takes place with pulse welding. Id. (citing a Wikipedia
article entitled “Gas Metal Arc Welding” that was submitted in the Evidence
Appendix of the Appeal Brief). Appellants assert that Stava discloses “a
4
Appeal 2015-007950
Application 13/916,676
short circuit welding process,” and “[sjhort circuit welding is one where the
arc is repeatedly extinguished and re-ignited.” Id. at 10. Thus, Appellants
argue, “[bjecause pulse welding is a process that is distinct and different
from the prior art short circuit welding, the 102 rejections should be
overturned.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As correctly noted
by the Examiner (see Final Act. 5) and Appellants (see Appeal Br. 9), the
Specification defines pulse welding as a welding process in which the output
current alternates between a background current and a higher peak current.
Spec. 1:7—8. Appellants’ attempt to define “pulse welding process” more
narrowly than as set forth in the Specification is improper, as pending claims
are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364. We
further note that although Appellants assert that “in pulse welding no short
circuiting takes place” (Appeal Br. 9), Appellants also appear to
acknowledge that short circuiting does take place by stating that “[pjulse
welding attempts to avoid short states” (id. at 10 (emphasis added)).
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Stava discloses a welding process
in which the welding power is pulsed such that welding current is reduced
prior to a short clearing to reduce spatter. See, e.g., Stava 4:32—50; see also
id. at 1:48—61; and Final Act. 2—3. Thus, Stava discloses all that is required
by claim 57. To the extent Appellants present additional arguments in the
Reply Brief that were not included in the Appeal Brief, such arguments are
untimely and will not be considered, in that Appellants fail to make a good
5
Appeal 2015-007950
Application 13/916,676
faith showing why they could not have been timely presented in the Appeal
Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 57—59, 62, and 63 as
being anticipated by Stava.
Anticipation Based on Parks
Appellants argue claims 57, 58, 62, and 65 together. Appeal Br. 9-10.
We select claim 57 as representative.
The Examiner finds that Parks discloses all of the elements of claim
57. Final Act. 3. Appellants present the same arguments as with respect to
the rejection based on Stava. Appeal Br. 9-10.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Parks discloses a welding process
in which the welding power is pulsed such that welding current is reduced
prior to a short clearing to reduce spatter. See, e.g., Parks 4:45—5:7; see also
Final Act. 3. To the extent Appellants present additional arguments in the
Reply Brief that were not included in the Appeal Brief, such arguments are
untimely and will not be considered, in that Appellants fail to make a good
faith showing why they could not have been timely presented in the Appeal
Brief.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 57, 58, 62, and 65 as
being anticipated by Parks.
Obviousness Rejections
With respect to the rejection of dependent claims 59-61, 63, and 64,
Appellants rely solely on the arguments presented above in regards to the
anticipation rejections of claim 57. Appeal Br. 10—11. Accordingly, for the
6
Appeal 2015-007950
Application 13/916,676
same reasons as discussed above, we also sustain the rejections of claims 59
and 63 as being unpatentable over Parks and of claims 60, 61, and 64 as
being unpatentable over either of Stava and Parks in combination with Geng.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 57—65 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7