William T. Matthews et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2019

14105758 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2019)

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.
14/105,758 12/13/2013 William T. Matthews 014593/000012 6116
135716 7590 12/16/2019
Lincoln Electric-Tucker Ellis LLP
950 Main Avenue
Suite 1100
Cleveland, OH 44113
EXAMINER
WARD, THOMAS JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2019 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
patents@tuckerellis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM T. MATTHEWS and JOSEPH A. DANIEL
____________

Appeal 2019-002804
Application 14/105,758
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision in the Final Office Action (dated July 26, 2018) rejecting claims 1–
12. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Lincoln Global, Inc. is identified as the real party in
interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 30, 2018). Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002804
Application 14/105,758
2

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a system that employs a computerized
eyewear device to provide “visualization and communication capabilities to
a welder using a welding system.” Spec. para. 2.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
1. An arc welding system, comprising:
a welding power source; and
a computerized eyewear device configured to be worn by
a user as eye glasses are worn, while also wearing a protective
welding helmet, wherein the computerized eyewear device
includes a transparent head-up display (HUD), which displays
an augmented reality image to the user performing a welding
operation with the welding power source, a wireless
communication interface, a processor, and a memory storing
computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-
executable instructions configure the computerized eyewear
device to:
communicate with the welding power source via the
wireless communication interface,
display information related to the welding power source
on the HUD as part of the augmented reality image, and
provide weld sequence support to the user to guide the
user through a sequence of two or more welds associated with a
workpiece through incorporation of support information in the
augmented reality image displayed on the HUD, wherein, upon
completion of a weld of the sequence, the augmented reality
image displays the support information indicating a next weld
of the sequence to be performed on the workpiece.

Appeal 2019-002804
Application 14/105,758
3

REJECTIONS

I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Batzler,2 Zboray,3 and
Pfeifer.4
II. The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Batzler, Zboray, Pfeifer, and
Becker.5
III. The Examiner rejects claims 6–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Batzler, Zboray, Pfeifer, and Olsson.6

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Batzler and
Zboray disclose a user worn computerized eyewear device including most of
the limitations of independent claim 1. See Final Act. 3–5. However, the
Examiner finds that the eyewear device of Batzler, as modified by Zboray,
does not “display information related to . . . provid[ing] weld sequence
support . . . to guide the user through a sequence of two or more welds,” as
called for by claim 1. See Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.) (emphasis added);
see also Final Act. 5. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that because the
limitation “sequence of two or more welds” does not require “separate
welds,” Pfeifer’s markings 154 are “indicative of a series of weld spots in

2 Batzler et al., US 9,352,411 B2, issued May 31, 2016.
3 Zboray et al., US 2010/0062406 A1, published Mar. 11, 2010.
4 Pfeifer et al., US 2013/0206741 A1, published Aug. 15, 2013.
5 Becker et al., US 2010/0223706 A1, published Sept. 9, 2010.
6 Olsson et al., US 2013/0044042 A1, published Feb. 21, 2013.
Appeal 2019-002804
Application 14/105,758
4

between each indicator 154.” Final Act. 10 (citing, Pfeifer, Fig. 5)
(emphasis omitted); see also id. at 5 (“and markings 154 (sequence a weld,
Fig. 5)”). Thus, according to the Examiner, “the limitation of a sequence has
been interpreted to mean a step of a weld and not necessarily distinct
different welds.” Id. at 10.
Appellant argues that the Examiner “is using an unreasonably broad
interpretation of ‘weld sequence’ and ‘two or more welds’ and ‘next weld.’”
Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).7 Appellant contends that
Pfeifer’s weld 152 is “a single weld” and that “markings 154 displayed
across the weld 152 simply indicate points along the weld 152.” Reply
Br. 6.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that because “[t]he
markings 154 denote a portion of weld 152 where the space in between each
markings 154 is a step of a weld,” a skilled artisan would understand that
“[t]he incremental markings 154 of Pf[ei]fer each define a weld.” Ans. 7.8
Thus, according to the Examiner, “[t]he weld 152 is made up of multiple
welds . . . where each step between each marking [154] is a weld and
therefore weld 152 is made up of multiple weld steps.” Id.
Claim language should be read in light of the Specification, as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Suitco Surface,
Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, we do not agree with the
Examiner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art of welding
would reasonably construe the material deposited between Pfeifer’s adjacent

7 Appellant’s Reply Brief, filed Feb. 21, 2019.
8 Examiner’s Answer, dated Feb. 15, 2019.
Appeal 2019-002804
Application 14/105,758
5

markings 154 as separate welds, such that “weld 152 . . . is made up of
multiple welds.” Ans. 7.
“Prior art references may be ‘indicative of what all those skilled in the
art generally believe a certain term means . . . [and] can often help to
demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the art.’” In re
Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In this case, Pfeifer
describes generating an electric arc between workpiece 14 and torch 26,
which melts part of workpiece 14 (i.e., material) and welding wire 24 (i.e.,
filler material), and, thus, forms a “weld.” Pfeifer, para. 21. As such, a
skilled artisan would understand that a “weld” represents the deposition of
material in the presence of an electric arc between workpiece 14 and
welding wire 24, that is, the deposition of material that occurs between the
initiation and the end of the electric arc. Therefore, as Pfeifer does not
disclose establishing separate (distinct) electric arcs for each successive
portion between adjacent markings 154, so that multiple welds result, as per
the Examiner’s position, we agree with Appellant that weld 152 is “a single
and continuous deposition of metal on the workpiece.” Reply Br. 6
(emphasis omitted); see also Pfeifer, Fig. 5 (weld 152 is illustrated as a
continuous deposition of material).
Accordingly, in contrast to the Examiner’s position, we construe the
limitation of a “sequence of two or more welds” to require two or more
separate (distinct) welds that are formed sequentially, e.g., when welding a
part or assembly at multiple weld locations. See Final Act. 10; Spec. ¶ 36.
As Pfeifer’s weld 152 constitutes a single deposition of metal in the presence
of a single electric arc, Pfeifer fails to disclose a “sequence of two or more
welds,” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, and as called
for by claim 1.
Appeal 2019-002804
Application 14/105,758
6

In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1, and its dependent
claims 2, 4, and 12, as unpatentable over Batzler, Zboray, and Pfeifer.

Rejections II and III
The Examiner’s use of the Becker and Olsson disclosures does not
remedy the deficiency of the Examiner’s combination of Batzler, Zboray,
and Pfeifer. See Final Act. 7–10.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed supra, we also do not
sustain the rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), of claims 3 and 5 as
unpatentable over Batzler, Zboray, Pfeifer, and Becker, and of claims 6–11
as unpatentable over Batzler, Zboray, Pfeifer, and Olsson.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claim(s)
rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 12 103(a) Batzler, Zboray,
Pfeifer
1, 2, 4, 12
3, 5 103(a) Batzler, Zboray,
Pfeifer, Becker
3, 5
6–11 103(a) Batzler, Zboray,
Pfeifer, Olsson
6–11
Overall
outcome
1–12

REVERSED