Ex Parte Koshiishi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2014

11670648 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FUSAKI KOSHIISHI, KEIICHI SUZUKI,
KEI YAMAZAKI, and MASAHIRO HONMA
____________

Appeal 2012-001969
Application 11/670,648
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before GAY ANN SPAHN, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-7. On Feb. 18, 2014, Appellants’ representative
presented arguments at oral hearing in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.47.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-001969
Application 11/670,648

2
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates generally “to a pulsed arc welding
method using, as a shield gas, carbon dioxide gas alone or a mixed gas
containing carbon dioxide gas as a main component,” and “more
particularly, to a pulsed arc welding method in which droplet transfer is
realized in synchronism with a group of pulses to thereby stabilize a welding
arc and, at the same time, to significantly reduce spatter and fume generation
rates.” Spec. 1, ll. 4-10. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
appealed subject matter.
1. A pulsed arc welding method comprising the steps
of:
introducing carbon dioxide gas alone or a mixed gas
made mainly of carbon dioxide gas as a shield gas;
applying a pulse current of a series of alternately
repeating first and second pulses as a weld current, wherein
each of the first pulse and the second pulse has a pulse
waveform of a different pulse peak current level and a different
pulse width than the other of the first pulse and the second
pulse, respectively; and
controlling the pulse current to maintain the following
current conditions:
peak current (Ipl) of the first pulse = 300 to 700A;
peak period (Tpl) of the first pulse = 0.3 to 5.0 ms;
base current (Ibl) of the first pulse = 30 to 200A;
base period (Tbl) of the first pulse = 0.3 to 10 ms;
peak current (Ip2) of the second pulse = 200 to 600A;
peak period (Tp2) of the second pulse = 1.0 to 15 ms;
base current (Ib2) of the second pulse = 30 to 200A; and
base period (Tb2) of the second pulse = 3.0 to 20 ms,
wherein when Ipl > Ip2, Tbl is between Tpl and Tp2, one
pulse-one droplet transfer is maintained, and a distance between
a contact chip and a base metal is varied, at least one of the
parameters selected from a group consisting of Ip2, Ib2, Tp2, and
Tb2 is adjusted so as to control an arc length at a given level,
Appeal 2012-001969
Application 11/670,648

3
within a range that one pulse-one droplet transfer is not
violated,
whereby spatter generation is reduced.

Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), are
before us for review:
I. claims 1-4, 6, and 7 as unpatentable over Matsui
(US 5,525,778, issued Jun. 11, 1996) and Ogasawara (US Re. 33,330,
reissued Sep. 11, 1990); and
II. claim 5 as unpatentable over Matsui, Ogasawara, and Kataoka
(JP 2003-236668 A, published Aug. 26, 2003).

OPINION
Rejection I – Obviousness based on Matsui and Ogasawara
The Examiner finds that Matsui substantially discloses the subject
matter of independent claim 1; however, Matsui fails to disclose “using
carbon dioxide alone or a mixed gas made . . . mainly of carbon dioxide gas
as a shield gas, and the parameters” for peak and base currents and periods
of both the first and second pulses as recited in lines 13-20 of claim 1 as
quoted supra. Ans. 5-6. To cure the deficiencies of Matsui, the Examiner
turns to Ogasawara to disclose “using carbon dioxide alone or a mixed gas
made . . . mainly of carbon dioxide gas as a shield gas,” “some of limitation
ranges of current and time such as Id, Td, Isp,” although not Tap, and
“calculating the total periods in order to calculate the wire feed rate.” Ans. 7
(citing Ogasawara, col. 4, ll. 20-67 and cols. 12 and 13). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2012-001969
Application 11/670,648

4
“to modify Matsui with carbon dioxide and the parameters as taught by
Ogasawara in order to reduce spattering by stabilizing the conditions o[f]
alternately repeated short circuit and arc phases” and “discovering the
optimum or workable ranges [of a result effective variable] involves only
routine skill in the art.” Id. (citing Ogasawara, col. 2, lines 40-42); see also
Ans. 10, ll. 2-3.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s conclusion “that the claimed
parameter ranges would have been obvious in Matsui . . ., as modified to use
a CO2 shield gas [by the teaching of Ogasawara], as the result of routine
experimentation to discover optimum values,” does “not set forth
‘articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning’ of how the prior art
has recognized these parameters as being a result effective variables for
reducing spatter in a pulse welding method using a CO2 shield gas.” App.
Br. 10. Appellants further argue that even, assuming arguendo, the
Examiner’s optimization reasoning had a rational underpinning, “a prima
facie case of obviousness for ranges may be rebutted by evidence of
criticality for the claimed ranges,” and “evidence of criticality for each of the
parameters [recited in claim 1] is found in Table 2 of the present
[S]pecification and would rebut any prima facie case of obviousness
presented by Matsui . . . [and] Ogasawara.” Id. (citing MPEP § 2144.05 III).
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2144.05,
subsection III, is entitled “REBUTTAL OF PRIMA FACIE CASE OF
OBVIOUSNESS” and indicates that “Applicants can rebut a prima facie
case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing the criticality
of the claimed range.” Appellants have pointed to Table 2 in their
Specification as evidence of the criticality of the ranges of the parameters in
Appeal 2012-001969
Application 11/670,648

5
the controlling step of claim 1. Table 2 sets forth Comparative Examples
19-34 which “are outside the scope of the invention and are all rated as poor,
having high generation rates of spatter and fume.” Spec. 30, Table 2 and
Spec. 31, ll. 4-6. Appellants’ Specification explicitly describes that in each
of Comparative Examples 19-34, a single one of the parameters claimed on
lines 13-20 of claim 1 as quoted supra (i.e., first pulse peak current or Ipl,
first pulse peak period or Tpl, first pulse base current or Ibl, first pulse base
period or Tbl, second pulse peak current or Ip2, second pulse peak period or
Tp2, second pulse base current or Ib2, second pulse base period or Tb2) is
outside the claimed range. Spec. 31, l. 7 through Spec. 34, l. 5. When a
single one of the parameters in claim 1 was outside the claimed range,
Table 2 of Appellants’ Specification shows that both the spatter generation
rate exceeded 4.0 g/minute and the fume generation rate exceeded 400
mg/minute and thus, Comparative Examples 19-34 were rated as poor. See
Spec. 28-29. In contrast, Examples 1-18 in Table 1 of Appellants’
Specification have all of the parameters of claim 1 within the claimed ranges
and have acceptable spatter and fume generation rates. Spec. 30. Since
Appellants’ Comparative Examples 19-34 in Table 2 provide evidence of the
criticality of keeping claim 1’s parameters within the claimed ranges in order
that spatter and fume generation rates remain at acceptable levels, we are
persuaded by Appellants’ argument that they have successfully rebutted any
prima facie case of obviousness that might have been set forth by the
Examiner.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 2-4, 6, and 7 dependent therefrom, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matsui and Ogasawara.
Appeal 2012-001969
Application 11/670,648

6
Rejection II – Obviousness based on Matsui, Ogasawara, and Kataoka
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 relies upon the conclusion of law
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Matsui by the teachings of Ogasawara which has been successfully rebutted
by the Appellants for the reasons discussed supra. See Ans. 7-8. The
Examiner does not rely upon Kataoka to cure the deficiencies of the
combination of Matsui and Ogasawara. Id. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Matsui, Ogasawara, and Kataoka.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-7.

REVERSED

Klh