12040183 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2014)

Ex Parte Uecker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 2014

12040183 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2014)

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. 12/040,183 02/29/2008 James Lee Uecker 14812 (ITWO:0338-1) 8909 52145 7590 09/22/2014 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) P.O. BOX 692289 HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER JENNISON, BRIAN W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/22/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAMES LEE UECKER, ROBERT RAIMUND DAVIDSON, CHARLES LYLE KAUFMAN and MICHAEL TODD KLEGIN ____________ Appeal 2012–007573 Application 12/040,1831 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL W. KIM, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants’ appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Illinois Tool Works Inc., the assignee of the application. (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2012–007573 Application 12/040,183 2 STATEMENT OF CASE The Appellants’ invention relates to a welding system configured to automatically adjust wire feed speed. (Spec. ¶ 2.) Illustrative Claim Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter. 1. A method of generating a welding arc comprising the steps of: initiating a wire feed at a run-in wire feed speed for a weld operation; temporarily reducing wire feed speed to a second wire feed speed less than a user selected speed for a period of time during the weld operation based on detection of arc initialization; and adjusting wire feed speed to the user selected speed. Prior Art References Hongu US 5,168,144 Dec. 1, 1992 Huismann US 2004/0016737 A1 Jan. 29, 2004 Hutchison US 2002/0079302 A1 June 27, 2002 Parks US 4,835,360 May 30, 1989 Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, and 7–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hongu in view of Huismann. Appeal 2012–007573 Application 12/040,183 3 The Examiner rejects claims 3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hongu in view of Huismann and further view of Parks. The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hongu in view of Huismann and further in view of Hutchison. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites a method comprising the steps of “initiating a wire feed at a run-in wire feed speed,” and “reducing wire feed speed to a second wire feed speed,” and “adjusting wire feed speed to the user selected speed.” (Appeal Br. 11, Claims App.) These steps involve two adjustments of wire feed speed. First, wire feed speed is reduced from a run-in speed to a second wire feed speed. Second, wire feed speed is adjusted to a user selected speed. Thus, independent claim 1 requires twice adjusting wire feed speed. Independent claims 9 and 15 likewise require twice adjusting wire feed speed or filler material delivery rate. (Appeal Br. 12, 13, Claims App.) The Examiner finds Hongu discloses a welding wherein wire feed speed is reduced during arc initialization and the speed is then adjusted. (Answer 5.) The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious, in view of Huismann, for Hongu’s second speed to be lower than its first speed. (Id. at 6.) The Appellants argue that, even if Hongu’s second speed is slower than its first speed, this reference does not teach the claimed wire feed speed adjustments. (See Reply Br. 3–5.) The Appellants assert Hongu regulates Appeal 2012–007573 Application 12/040,183 4 the initial wire feed speed for a new welding operation and subsequently adjusts wire feed speed to a second speed. (Id. at 5.) The Appellants contend that Hongu does not teach a further wire feed speed adjustment after adjusting to the second speed. (Id.) The Appellants’ position is persuasive. The Examiner cites to a passage in Hongu (column 4, lines 5–30) to establish Hongu discloses the claimed wire speeds. (Answer 5.)2 According to this passage, Hongu sets an initial wire speed feed upon output of a starting signal and until current flows between the welding wire and the mother material. (Hongu, col. 4, ll. 8–22.) When current flows between the welding wire and the mother material, Hongu adjusts wire feed speed to a second speed “until the end of the welding operation.” (Hongu, col. 4, ll. 22–28.) As pointed out by the Appellants, Hongu does not teach a further wire feed speed adjustment after adjustment to the second speed. (Reply Br. 5.) Hence, Hongu adjusts wire feed speed only once. The independent claims require twice adjusting wire feed speed or filler material delivery rate. Hongu discloses adjusting wire feed speed only once, and thus does not meet this requirement of the claims. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 15, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12–14, and 16–19 depending therefrom. 2The Examiner also cites to a sentence in Hongu’s background (column 1, lines 15–23) that comments on a conventional “wire slow down system.” (Answer 8.) But, the Examiner does not adequately explain how such background information relates to the welding apparatus relied upon in the obviousness rejection. Appeal 2012–007573 Application 12/040,183 5 Regarding the rejection of dependent claims 3, 5, 6, and 20, we agree with the Appellants that the Examiner’s findings regarding Parks and Hutchison do not obviate the deficiencies of the Hongu-Huismann combination. (Appeal Br. 8, 9.) Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5, 6, and 20. DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. REVERSE pgc