Ex Parte Peters et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201813534119 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/534,119 06/27/2012 124124 7590 06/04/2018 The Lincoln Electric Company (Pearne Cases) Attn: Kevin M. Dunn/IP Legal 22801 Saint Clair Ave Cleveland, OH 44117 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Steven Peters 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. LINC-49321 9805 EXAMINER WARD, THOMAS JOHN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2018 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): ip@lincolnelectric.com brad_spencer@ lincolnelectric. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN PETERS, JUDAH HENRY, and STEPHEN COLE Appeal2017-007802 1 Application 13/534,1192 Technology Center 3700 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 14, 16-20 and 22-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed December 6, 2016) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 3, 2017), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed March 28, 2017), and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 19, 2016). 2 Appellants identify The Lincoln Electric Company as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2017-007802 Application 13/534, 119 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants' claimed "invention relates to controllers in arc welding systems and to control methodologies for use in arc welding systems" (Spec. ,r 1 ). Claims 14 and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 14, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 14. A method for controlling an arc welding system, comprising the steps of: [ (a)] providing the arc welding system, wherein the arc welding system comprises: a welding torch comprising a contact tip; and a welding power supply, the welding power supply compnsmg: a switching type power converter operatively connected to the welding torch, a parallel state-based controller comprising a processor that is configured to simultaneously control both operations of the switching type power converter according to a welding state table and movement of the welding torch according to a motion control system state table; a welding voltage sensor; and a welding current sensor; [ (b)] generating an electrical arc between the arc welding system and a workpiece; [ ( c)] controlling, by the processor of the parallel state- based controller, the switching type power converter to generate a welding waveform according to the welding state table, the welding state table comprising a first plurality of sequential control states that together regulate open circuit voltage during touch retract starting and define a plurality of different current levels within the welding waveform during arc welding after the touch retract starting, wherein the step of controlling the switching type power converter comprises sequentially 2 Appeal2017-007802 Application 13/534, 119 transitioning between control states of the welding state table based on at least one of a welding voltage signal from the welding voltage sensor and a welding current signal from the welding current sensor; and [(d)] controlling, by the processor of the parallel state- based controller simultaneously with controlling the switching type power converter, the movement of the welding torch according to the motion control system state table, the motion control system state table comprising a second plurality of sequential control states that together control the touch retract starting, and a contact tip to work distance (CTWD) during arc welding, wherein the step of controlling the movement of the welding torch comprises sequentially transitioning between control states of the motion control system state table based on at least one of the welding voltage signal from the welding voltage sensor and the welding current signal from the welding current sensor and controlling the contact tip to work distance (CTWD) of the welding torch during arc welding, such that the welding torch is offset from the workpiece by the CTWD to provide a gap between the welding torch and the workpiece during arc welding. REJECTION Claims 14, 16-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Fulmer et al. (US 2005/0269306 Al, pub. Dec. 8, 2005) ("Fulmer"), Nakata et al (US 4,408,114, iss. Oct. 4, 1983) ("Nakata"), Umbaugh (US 3,727,822, iss. Apr. 17, 1973), Blankenship et al (US 6,657,163 Bl, iss. Dec. 2, 2003) ("Blankenship"), and Lund (US 2,857,546, iss. Oct. 21, 1958). ANALYSIS Independent Claim 14 and Dependent Claims 16-19 In rejecting independent claim 14 under§ I03(a), the Examiner cites Fulmer as disclosing an arc welding system comprising "a welding torch"; 3 Appeal2017-007802 Application 13/534, 119 "a switching type power converter"; and "a parallel state-based controller comprising a processor" for "controlling the switching type power converter ... according to [a] welding state table," as recited in claim 14 (Final Act. 2-3 (citing Fulmer, Figs. 4, 8)). The Examiner, however, acknowledges that Fulmer does not disclose simultaneously controlling the switching power converter and movement of the welding torch according to a motion control system state table, i.e., a method of controlling, by the parallel state-based controller simultaneously with controlling the switching type power converter, movement of the welding torch according to the motion control system state table, the motion control system state table comprising a second plurality of sequential control states, wherein the step of controlling the movement of the welding torch comprises sequentially transitioning between control states of the motion control system state table based on at least one of the welding voltage signal from the welding voltage sensor and the welding current signal from the welding current sensor[,] as called for in limitation ( d) of claim 14 (id. at 3). The Examiner cites Nakata to cure this deficiency of Fulmer (id. at 3--4 (finding that Nakata discloses, with reference to Figure 5, "a resistance welding method" in which a pair of workpieces are welded by "applying current though electrode 2a, moved by piston 3[,] and pressure control device 9 controls the pressure applied to the electrodes 2a and 2b through piston 3.")). And, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants' invention "to modify the wire feeder 20 of Fulmer et al with the control device 9 and piston 3 taught by Nakata et al to provide a welding process with increased reliability and controllability" (id. at 4 ). 4 Appeal2017-007802 Application 13/534, 119 Appellants argue, and we agree, that the rejection cannot be sustained at least because "Nakata does not disclose or suggest a processor that perform[ s] control operations according to state tables," as called for in claim 14 (App. Br. 15-16; see also Reply Br. 3). Responding to Appellants' argument in the Answer, the Examiner explains that the "Examiner has taken the position that a welding state table comprises a series of signals that reflect the on and off state of current pulses introduce[d] to a welding electrode," and that "[t]he waveform generator 50 of Fulmer et al was modified with the control device 9 [of Nakata] which controls the position of an electrode to provide a controller which controls both a current pulse and movement of the electrode" (Ans. 9). However, as Appellants observe, Nakata's "control device 9 is merely an analog hydraulic pressure control system for controlling the pressure applied by a piston 3 to an electrode 2a during resistance welding" (Reply Br. 3). We find nothing in the cited portions of Nakata, including Figure 5, on which the Examiner relies, that discloses or suggests controlling the movement of the electrode according to a state table. Nakata discloses a control system for resistance welding that includes "changing the welding pressure or current applied to the electrodes in accordance with a reference voltage curve or a reference voltage integration curve" (Nakata, col. 1, 11. 12-19). And Nakata discloses that "pressure control device 9 controls the pressure on the electrodes 2a and 2b [by] actuating the piston 3 in accordance with the signal V d in proportion to the voltage difference" (Nakata, col. 4, 11. 45--49). But, we fail to see how, and the Examiner has not adequately explained how, Nakata discloses or suggests controlling movement according to a "motion control system state 5 Appeal2017-007802 Application 13/534, 119 table" as called for in claim 14. In fact, the Examiner has not pointed to any specific element of Nakata as corresponding to the claimed "motion control system state table." The Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness in the first instance. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 16-19. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"). Independent Claim 20 and Dependent Claims 22-24 Independent claim 20 includes language substantially identical to the language of claim 14, and stands rejected based on the same rationale applied with respect to claim 14 (see Final Act. 2--4). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 20, and claims 22-24, which depend therefrom, for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 14. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 14, 16-20 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation