Ex Parte Zamuner

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 20, 2013

11229239 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FRANK ZAMUNER
____________

Appeal 2011-000932
Application 11/229,239
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000932
Application 11/229,239

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Frank Zamuner (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 8-12, 19, 21, 25, 35, 37-51, 62, 63,
and 76-83. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 35, 39, 62, 76, and 77 are independent. Claims 1 and 62 are
illustrative of the claimed subject matter and are reproduced below.
1. A torch for directing a welding wire with a given
diameter toward a workpiece, said torch comprising: a main
cylindrical conductive assembly having a diffuser for directing
shielding gas outwardly from said assembly; a contact tip
having a central wire guide bore; and, a cylindrical metal nozzle
with a rear end held on said main assembly, wherein said rear
end of said cylindrical metal nozzle includes a gripping
mechanism, said gripping mechanism including: a first
generally cylindrical collet as the rear end of said nozzle and
having an outwardly facing surface and at least one axially
extending collapsible slot extending through a thickness of said
rear end; and a second generally cylindrical actuator ring with
an inner generally cylindrical surface sliding around said
outwardly facing surface, where at least one of said surfaces is
slightly non-circular whereby rotation of said actuator ring on
said collet at least partially closes at least one collapsible slot to
clamp said rear end of said nozzle onto said cylindrical
assembly.1
62. A torch for directing a welding wire with a given
diameter toward a workpiece, said torch comprising: a main
cylindrical conductive assembly having a diffuser for directing
shielding gas outwardly from said assembly; a contact tip
having a central wire guide bore; and, a cylindrical metal nozzle
with a rear end held on said main assembly, said cylindrical

1 The gripping mechanisms of independent claims 35 and 39, which are
different than the gripping mechanism of claim 1, are discussed infra.
Appeal 2011-000932
Application 11/229,239

3
assembly including a coolant passage with an inlet conduit and
an outlet conduit formed in said assembly, wherein at least one
of said conduits has a center coolant passage surrounded by a
proven power lead for directing welding current to said main
cylindrical body.
References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Cusick US 4,864,099 Sept. 5, 1989
Zamuner EP 0 590 728 A1 Apr. 6, 1994
Stuart US 5,338,917 Aug. 16, 1994
Estes US 6,209,886 B1 Apr. 3, 2001
Zapletal US 6,271,497 B1 Aug. 7, 2001

Rejections
The Examiner makes the following rejections:
I. Claims 1-5, 8-12, 19, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Zamuner and Estes;
II. Claims 35, 37-51, 76-822 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Zamuner, Estes, Cusick, and Zapletal; and
III. Claims 62, 63, and 83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zamuner, Estes, and Stuart.

2 While the heading for Rejection II does not indicate that claims 78-82 were
subject to the rejection, the text of the rejection itself indicates in two
locations that those claims were included. See Final Office Action (mailed
Sept. 8, 2009) at 7 (“Regarding Claim 35, 76-77-82”), 9 (separately
addressing “Claims 78-80,” “Claim 81,” and “Claim 82”); see also Ans. 9
(“Regarding Claim 35, 76-77-82”); 13 (separately addressing “Claims 78-
80,” “Claim 81,” and “Claim 82”). The Final Rejection similarly identified
“Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, 19, 21, 25, 35, 37-51, 62, 63, and 76-83” as rejected.
Final Office Action (mailed Sept. 8, 2009) at 1. Accordingly, claims 78-82
were included in Rejection II.
Appeal 2011-000932
Application 11/229,239

4
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

OPINION
Rejection I – Zamuner and Estes
The Examiner determined that Zamuner and Estes render obvious the
subject matter of claims 1-5, 8-12, 19, 21, and 25. Ans. 4-7. The Examiner
found that Zamuner discloses most of the limitations of the claims, but fails
to teach a gripping mechanism meeting the elements of the claims. Id. at
4-5. The Examiner relied upon Estes as disclosing a gripping mechanism
that includes a collet with slots, whereby the slots contract radially during
twisting to secure a guide sleeve when a collet nut is rotated. Id. at 6. The
Examiner also found that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of invention to “include with the teachings of Zamuner
the collapsible slot since Estes teaches a slot or cut to contract and
frictionally engage or release a guide sleeve of a gripping mechanism for a
hand tool.” Id.
Appellant asserts several arguments in response to this rejection,
including, inter alia, that the Examiner has not considered the claimed
invention as a whole because the Examiner failed to identify a reason as to
why one of ordinary skill in the art would “integrate slots into the structure
being secured (i.e., the nozzle).” Reply Br. 9. Appellant acknowledges that
Estes discloses a slotted collet, but the collet is independent from the
component being secured. Id. Appellant argues that unlike Estes, the claims
require the slots within the object being secured and not within any separate,
intermediate component. Id.
Appeal 2011-000932
Application 11/229,239

5
We agree. The Examiner’s stated rationale, as recited above, simply
combines a collapsible slot, divorced from the location disclosed by Estes,
with the teachings of Zamuner. See Ans. 6. The Examiner fails to indicate
any reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would integrate the slots
of Estes in the component being secured, rather than simply a collet as
taught by Estes. Since the claims require “at least one axially extending
collapsible slot extending through a thickness of said rear end [of the
nozzle,]” the Examiner’s rationale does not support the Examiner’s
conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious.
Accordingly, we do not sustain Rejection I.3
Rejection II – Zamuner, Estes, Cusick, and Zapletal
The Examiner determined that Zamuner, Estes, Cusick, and Zapletal
render obvious the subject matter of claims 35, 37-51, and 76-82. Ans. 8-
13.4 The Examiner found that Zamuner as modified by Estes discloses most
of the limitations of the claims. See id. With respect to claims 35 and 76-
82, the Examiner found that Zamuner as modified by Estes fails to teach the
claimed gripping mechanism. Id. at 9. The Examiner, however, relied upon
Cusick as teaching a first surface with a groove comprising a snap ring as
well as a nozzle shaped with an annular recess for fitting the ring. Id. The
Examiner also relied upon Zapletal as disclosing a plurality of o-rings,
which fit into a plurality of grooves to secure a nozzle. Id. at 11. With

3 Claims 2-5, 8-12, 19, 21, and 25 depend, either directly or indirectly, from
claim 1. Thus, they also require a collapsible slot.
4 Claims 44-47 and 78 depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 1.
Thus, because the Examiner did not rely upon Cusick or Zapletal to remedy
the deficiency noted with respect to Rejection I, we do not sustain Rejection
II as applied to those claims. See Ans. 7-13.
Appeal 2011-000932
Application 11/229,239

6
respect to claims 35, 39, and 76, the Examiner found that Zamuner, figures 2
and 9a, show a gripping mechanism including a cylindrical metal nozzle
capable of being gripped with a cylindrical surface for gripping. Id. at 8.
Regarding independent claims 35 and 77, Appellant asserts that while
the Examiner identifies several elements of the claims, the Examiner failed
to find a plurality of annular grooves within the inner surface of the nozzle
as required by these claims. Reply Br. 12. Regarding independent claim 39,
Appellant contends that the Examiner is mistaken with respect to figures 2
and 9 of Zamuner in that figure 2 does not disclose a gripping mechanism
and figure 9 discloses a “combined nose-piece body and gas-feed tube,” not
a nozzle capable of being gripped with a cylindrical surface for gripping.
Reply Br. 15. Regarding independent claim 76, Appellant asserts that the
claim contains substantially the same limitation as claim 1, requiring a
gripping mechanism including at least one axially extending collapsible slot
extending through a thickness of said rear end of the nozzle, and thus is
patentable for the reasons explained with respect to claim 1. See App. Br.
18-19; Reply Br. 16.
First, claim 35 requires a gripping mechanism including “a first
cylindrical surface fixed with respect to said cylindrical assembly, said first
surface having a groove with a snap ring protruding from said first surface
and said rear end of said nozzle including an inner surface generally
matching said first surface.” Claim 77 requires a nozzle including a rear end
“including an inner cylindrical surface with a plurality of snap ring receiving
grooves, each of said grooves adapted to selectively receive a snap ring
carried on the outer cylindrical surface of said torch.” We cannot discern
from the Examiner’s rejection that any of the cited references disclose “an
Appeal 2011-000932
Application 11/229,239

7
inner surface generally matching said first surface” as called for in claim 35,
or “an inner cylindrical surface with a plurality of snap ring receiving
grooves” as called for in claim 77.
Second, claim 39 requires a gripping mechanism including
a first cylindrical friction surface fixed with respect to a
cylindrical surface of the main assembly, and an inner
cylindrical friction surface of said rear end of said nozzle, the
inner friction surface generally matching said first friction
surface to hold said nozzle onto said first friction surface by
frictional force.
We agree with Appellant that figure 2 of Zamuner does not disclose a
specific gripping mechanism. We also agree with Appellant that figure 9
discloses a combined nose-piece body and gas-feed tube, and not a nozzle as
claimed. See Zamuner, col. 8, ll. 22-24 (“Such combining of components
can be taken a step further. In Fig 9, again the nose-piece body and the gas-
feed-tube are combined in a single piece 109 . . . .”).
Finally, claim 76 contains substantially the same limitation as claim 1,
which we addressed with respect to Rejection I. The Examiner did not rely
upon Cusick or Zapletal to remedy the deficiency noted with respect to
Rejection I. See Ans. 7-13
Accordingly, we do not sustain Rejection II.
Rejection III – Zamuner, Estes, and Stuart
The Examiner determined that Zamuner, Estes, and Stuart render
obvious the subject matter of claims 62, 63, and 83. Ans. 13-15. The
Examiner found that Zamuner and Estes disclose most of the limitations of
the claims, but fail to teach a coolant passage “wherein at least one of said
conduits has a center coolant passage surrounded by a proven power lead for
Appeal 2011-000932
Application 11/229,239

8
directing welding current to said main cylindrical body.” Id. at 14. The
Examiner then found that Stuart, figure 10, discloses a “conduit with a
center passage capable of air cooling with copper power leads 150, 152, 154,
156, etc. surrounding the passage for providing current . . . to the main
cylindrical body and an annual gap 146 which provides an air cooling
passage.” Id. The Examiner also concluded that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include a
“conduit with coolant passage surrounded by power leads” with the
teachings of Zamuner because Stuart teaches a “conduit with center passage
surrounded by copper strands for energizing the welding gun.” Id. The
Examiner further concluded that it would have been obvious to duplicate the
conduit since mere duplication of essential working parts of a device
involves only routine skill in the art. Id. at 18.
Appellant raises several arguments in response to this rejection. First,
Appellant asserts that Stuart does not disclose a coolant inlet and outlet
extending from the torch, where at least one of the inlet and outlet also
includes a power lead surrounding the coolant passage. App. Br. 19-20. In
a similar vein, Appellant contends that Stuart also does not disclose power
leads surrounding the coolant passage of each of the coolant inlet and outlet.
Id. at 20. Second, Appellant asserts that it would not have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art “to surround a coolant passage with a power
lead” because the Examiner failed to identify a teaching or suggestion “to
place a coaxial cable about a coolant passage in lieu of the shielding gas
passage.” Id. Third, Appellant contends that it would not have been
obvious to provide two conduits of Stuart with power leads since Stuart’s
conduit includes a shield gas passage. Id. Fourth, Appellant asserts that it
Appeal 2011-000932
Application 11/229,239

9
would have been obvious “to associate the shielding gas tube of Zamuner
with a power lead as taught [by] Stuart,” but not “to associate a power lead
with the water pipes of Zamuner due to the fact that water can conduct
electricity.” Reply Br. 18.
Appellant’s arguments reflect different means of expressing the same
ends—Stuart does not disclose or suggest a coolant inlet conduit or a coolant
outlet conduit with power leads surrounding the passageways. The
Examiner’s findings reflect no conflict with Appellant’s argument. Rather,
the Examiner found that Stuart discloses a “conduit with a center passage
capable of air cooling.” Ans. 18 (emphasis added). Appellant’s response is
simply that the Examiner’s finding—that Stuart’s center passage is capable
of air cooling—“is not taught by Stuart.” Reply Br. 18.
Stuart need not explicitly teach or suggest that the center passage of
its conduit is capable of air cooling. The structure of the conduit alone may
so reveal, as the Examiner found here. As described in column 8, ll. 26-68,
and shown in figure 10, Stuart discloses a welding wire feed tube 226 in the
center passage of gas feed tube 177. Gas feed tube 177 is surrounded by
copper stranding 151, which is composed of a plurality of copper strands,
e.g., 150, 152, and interwoven with two control wires, 178 and 180. Outer
insulating sheath 148 surrounds the copper stranding. An annular gap 146
exists between the outer insulating sheath 148 (which forms the exterior of
coaxial welding cable 42) and strain relief 60. While we agree with
Appellant that the first choice for one of ordinary skill in the art may have
been to surround a gas shielding conduit with power leads, Appellant has not
identified anything with respect to the structure of Stuart’s conduit that
Appeal 2011-000932
Application 11/229,239

10
persuades us that it is not capable of acting as a conduit with a “center
coolant passage” as claimed.
Further, we agree with the Examiner that duplicating Stuart’s conduit
to obtain two conduits with power leads as claimed would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and Appellant has not persuaded us
of error with respect to the Examiner’s finding.
Accordingly, we affirm Rejection III.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 8-12, 19, 21,
25, 35, 37-51, and 76-82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as reflected in Rejections
I and II. We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 62, 63, and 83
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as reflected in Rejection III.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh