Ex Parte Hsu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2018

13231269 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/231,269 09/13/2011
279 7590
IP Docket
Clark Hill PLC
130 East Randolph Street
Suite 3900
Chicago, IL 60601
12/19/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher Hsu
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.
24500/163041/20 1633
EXAMINER
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2018 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):
IPDocket@clarkhill.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER HSU and LARRY CHURCH 1
Appeal2018-003227
Application 13/231,269
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 26, 27, 29, and 30. Br. 1.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Nelson Stud Welding, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
2 All citations to the Brief are to the Brief that was filed on July 27, 2017.
Appeal2018-003227
Application 13/231,269
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 14, 26, and 27 are independent. Claim 1 is shown below.
1. A drawn arc stud welding device comprising:
a welding tool including a chuck for carrying a welding
stud;
an energy storage device formed from at least one
capacitor, the energy storage device configured to store energy
sufficient for at least one drawn arc stud weld at a voltage
above a welding voltage, wherein an input of said energy
storage device is coupled to a charging circuit and an output of
said energy storage device is coupled to a discharge circuit;
said charging circuit connected to the energy storage
device and configured to fully charge said energy storage
device for a single weld from a single-phase household AC
power source before each weld;
a discharge circuit having an input and an output , said
input connected to said energy storage device and said output
connected to said welding tool, said discharge circuit for
regulating the weld current applied to the weld tool, said
discharge circuit directing weld current from said energy
storage device to the welding stud under the control of a control
circuit , wherein said control circuit includes a pulse width
modulation circuit that is configured to control said discharge
circuit and regulate said welding current to a set specified
amount by way of closed loop feedback that is delivered to the
welding tool as a function of the level of weld current set by a
user , said control circuit is further configured to tum off the
discharge circuit after each weld and cause the energy storage
device to be recharged for another weld, said discharge circuit
including a buck converter coupled to said energy storage
device for regulating the weld voltage applied to the weld tool;
and
a user interface for enabling a user to be selectively
adjust the weld current to be supplied to said welding stud
across a range of weld currents.
Br. 22-23 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2018-003227
Application 13/231,269
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 26, 27, 29, and 30 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Hsu '880 (US 2010/0170880 Al,
pub. July 8, 2010), Hsu '389 (US 2010/0230389 Al, pub. Sept. 16, 2010),
Matus (US 7,049,545 B2, iss. May 23, 2006), O'Connor (US 2007/0215585
Al, pub. Sept. 20, 2007), and Jank (US 6,476,354 Bl, iss. Nov. 5, 2002), or
Albrecht (US 7,183,517 B2, iss. Feb. 27, 2007).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Hsu
'880, Hsu '389, Matus, O'Connor, Jank or Albrecht, and Oglesbee (US
5,767,657, iss. June 16, 1998).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 26, 27, 29, and 30 Rejected Over
Hsu '880, Hsu '389, Matus, O'Connor, and Jank or Albrecht
The Examiner finds that Hsu '880 discloses a drawn arc stud welding
device and method as recited in independent claims 1, 14, 26, and 27 with an
energy storage device (capacitors 30), charging unit (switches 25), a control
unit 22, a pulse width modulation (PWM 904) to regulate discharge current,
and a discharging unit (capacitor discharge switches 35). Non-Final Act. 2.
The Examiner also finds that Hsu '880 does not show a chuck, a discharge
circuit for regulating the weld current, and a control unit with a pulse width
modulation circuit that controls the discharge circuit and regulates welding
current by way of closed feedback where the discharging unit has a buck
converter and a user interface. Id. at 2-3.
The Examiner finds that Hsu '389 discloses a welding gun with a
chuck adapter and a PWM module to control a switch(es) of a power/energy
supply in a closed loop control of a welding current. Id. at 3.
3
Appeal2018-003227
Application 13/231,269
The Examiner finds that Matus discloses a welding machine with a
115V AC power input that charges a capacitor that is coupled to a discharge
unit/inverter with controller 40 controlling the discharge unit based on the
feedback from the output welding current 42. Id.
The Examiner finds that O'Connor discloses an energy storage
element including a capacitor that is discharged through a discharging circuit
including a buck converter (inverter 18b) that is controlled by controller 30
including PWM 30. Id.
The Examiner finds that Jank or Albrecht shows that it is well known
in the art to preset or predetermine a desired welding power, voltage, or
current via a user input interface 22, 40. Id.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify
Hsu '880 to include a control unit with a PWM circuit/module to control the
discharging unit, including a buck converter, to regulate the welding current
supplied from an energy storage device so the welding current is controlled
and supplied at the desired amount set by a user via a closed loop feedback
where the welding current is adjusted or set to a specified and predetermined
amount to generate the desired arc conditions, including pilot arc and main
arc, to process a stud arc welding which is well known in the art. Id.
Appellants argue that the claims recite devices and a process of drawn
arc stud welding whereas Hsu '880 relates to a capacitive discharge welding
device, which is totally different from drawn arc welding systems. Br. 6-12.
Appellants argue that Hsu '389 is the only reference that relates to drawn arc
stud welding systems, and the Examiner has failed to provide an articulated
reason to support the conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 17, 20.
The Examiner responds by pointing out that
4
Appeal2018-003227
Application 13/231,269
[T]he claimed elements are stated as being known in the art
wherein the applied references are also deemed in the same
field of endeavor, which is in the field of welding art that shows
how a power source is controlled to output the desired welding
current. Thus, as the applied art is deemed to be in the same
field of endeavor with variations that are predictable to one of
ordinary skill in the art, the prima facie case of obviousness
under the KSR standard is deemed met as stated in the ground
of rejection.
Ans. 6-7.
"[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious
merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
known in the prior art." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418
(2007) (holding that it is important to identify a reason that would have
prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art to combine elements
in the way a claimed invention does) ( cited with approval in Transocean
Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., 617
F.3d 1296, 1303---04 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Even if prior art references are in the
same alleged field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter, that fact does
not establish a sufficient rationale to support an obviousness conclusion. See
Securus Techs., Inc. V. Global Tel*Link Corp., 701 F. App'x 971, 977
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (non-precedential). This is so because "rejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at
418). The Examiner has not provided any reasoning supported by a rational
underpinning to combine the disparate teachings of the prior art in this case.
5
Appeal2018-003227
Application 13/231,269
The determination that it would have been obvious to modify Hsu
'880 with teachings of Hsu '389, Matus, O'Connor, and Jank or Albrecht to
use a PWM to control a discharging unit and a buck converter to regulate
welding current via a closed loop feedback (Non-Final Act. 3) does not
explain how or why the teachings of the references would have been obvious
to combine with Hsu '880. The Examiner finds that Hsu '880 already uses a
PWM to control the current discharge, but also cites Hsu '389 and O'Connor
for their teachings of PWMs. Id. at 2-3. The Examiner finds that Hsu '389,
Matus, and O'Connor also teach controlling a welding current in different
ways. Id. at 3. It is not clear which teachings of each reference would have
been combined with Hsu '880 and why. This is especially an issue because
Hsu '880 teaches capacitive arc welding, Hsu '389 teaches drawn arc stud
welding, Matus teaches MIG continuous wire welding, and O'Connor
teaches high current arc welding. Br. 6, 16-18.
The Examiner has not explained sufficiently why it would have been
obvious to combine certain elements (PWMs, controllers, feedbacks) of
different arc welding processes (drawn arc, MIG, high current) to control
Hsu '880's capacitive arc welding system. Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 26, 27, 29, and 30
Claim 2 Rejected Over
Hsu '880, Hsu '389, Matus, 0 'Connor, Jank or Albrecht, and Oglesbee
The Examiner's reliance on Oglesbee to teach a forward converter in
dependent claim 2 does not overcome the prior art deficiencies noted above
for the rejection of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 4. Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 2.
6
Appeal2018-003227
Application 13/231,269
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 26, 27, 29,
and 30.
REVERSED
7