Ex Parte Hsu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 17, 201813231269 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation