Ex Parte Albrecht

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 22, 2013

11852115 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2013)

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.
11/852,115 09/07/2007 Bruce Albrecht 20402 (ITWO:0352) 1563
52145 7590 07/22/2013
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
07/22/2013 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 BRUCE ALBRECHT
____________

Appeal 2011-006921
Application 11/852,115
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bruce Albrecht (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-23, which are all of the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-006921
Application 11/852,115

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “monitoring and/or
controlling of welding apparatuses and processes based on information
gathered and extracted from electronically readable information storage
devices encoded with information pertaining to a given welding
consumable.” Spec., para. [0002]. Claims 1, 12, 16, 19, and 23 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal.
1. A welding-type system comprising:
a power source to produce a welding-type power, the
power source being operable in a plurality of operating modes;
a controller configured to set a plurality of operating
parameters within the power source;
at least one wireless monitoring device coupled to the
controller;
at least one welding-type consumable container holding
at least one welding-type consumable, the container having a
wireless transmitter supported thereon, the wireless transmitter
having a dedicated power supply and being configured to emit
low frequency magnetic signals having consumable data
encoded therein indicative of the at least one welding-type
consumable; and
wherein the at least one wireless monitoring device is
arranged to communicate with the wireless transmitter by
receiving and transmitting the low frequency magnetic signals,
the low frequency magnetic signals being transmitted at a
frequency of approximately 131 kHz.
Appeal 2011-006921
Application 11/852,115

3
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Moore US 2003/0001726 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
Niedereder US 6,797,921 B1 Sep. 28, 2004
Furman US 2005/0199605 A1 Sep. 15, 2005
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) as described in paragraph
[0022] of the Specification
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-6, 10-13, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Furman and AAPA;
2. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Furman,
AAPA, and Moore;
3. Claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Niedereder
and AAPA; and
4. Claims 7, 8, 14, 15, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Furman, AAPA, and Niedereder.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
Independent system claims 1 and 12 and independent method claim
16 call for a wireless transmitter/wireless transceiver tag having “a dedicated
power supply.” We agree with Appellant (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 4) that the
Examiner’s finding that Furman discloses a wireless transmitter having a
dedicated power supply is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
We understand “dedicated power supply” in light of the Specification to
Appeal 2011-006921
Application 11/852,115

4
mean a power supply devoted to providing power solely to the wireless
transmitter. See, e.g., Spec., para. [0031] (describing the wireless tag 26 has
its own battery or other power source 56) and fig. 2.
Contrary to the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 4-5), Furman’s wireless
transmitter (transceiver 130) does not have a dedicated power supply “as
connected by line 50.” Rather, as shown in Figure 1 of Furman, cable 50
provides power from power source 10 to a controller 80 that controls the
speed of the motor that operates feed rolls 70, 72 of the wire feeder and also
provides power, via power lead 54, to contact sleeve 34 for the welding
process when switch 22 of the power supply is closed. Furman, para.
[0021]; fig. 1. Furman does not disclose how power is supplied to
transceiver 130, and because the only power source 10 disclosed in Furman
supplies power to both the wire feeder and the contact sleeve of the welding
apparatus, Furman does not disclose a “dedicated power supply” for the
transceiver 130.
Further, contrary to the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 16), box 310
depicted in Figure 5 of Furman represents a comingling of leads 302, 304,
and 306 from multiple power sources and does not represent a dedicated
power supply for transceiver 130. Spec., para. [0031]. While a single
output lead 316 from box 310 connects the wire feeder/welding apparatus to
a single power source (X, Y, or Z), we understand Furman to disclose that
the single power source provides power to the wire feeder and the contact
sleeve, as shown in Figure 1. As such, for the same reasons discussed supra,
Appeal 2011-006921
Application 11/852,115

5
we find that Figure 5 of Furman does not disclose a wireless transmitter
having a dedicated power supply.
For the reasons provided supra, we reverse the rejection of
independent claims 1, 12, and 16, and their dependent claims 2-6, 10, 11, 13,
17, and 18, as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Furman and
AAPA.
Rejection 2
The second ground of rejection relies on the same finding as to the
disclosure in Furman of transceiver 130 having a “dedicated power supply”
as made in the first ground of rejection. For the reasons provided supra, we
reverse the rejection of claim 9 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Furman, AAPA, and Moore.
Rejection 3
Independent method claim 23 recites “positioning a wireless tag in
proximity to the consumable . . . the wireless tag having a dedicated power
supply.” The Examiner found that Niedereder discloses a “wireless tag.”
Ans. 11 (identifying wireless interface 23 as a wireless tag). The Examiner
has failed, however, to address or make any finding that Niedereder
discloses that the wireless interface 23 has a dedicated power source. See
Ans. 11-12, 16-17. In fact, Niedereder appears to disclose only a single
power component 3 that provides power to numerous components. See, e.g.,
Niedereder, fig. 1. As such, the Examiner has not shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that Niedereder discloses a wireless tag
having a dedicated power supply, as called for in claim 23. Accordingly, we
Appeal 2011-006921
Application 11/852,115

6
reverse the rejection of claim 9 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Niedereder and AAPA.
Rejection 4
The fourth ground of rejection relies on the same finding as to the
disclosure in Furman of transceiver 130 having a “dedicated power supply”
as made in the first ground of rejection. Ans. 12-15. For the reasons
provided supra, we reverse the rejection of claims 7, 8, 14, 15, and 19-22 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Furman, AAPA, and
Niedereder.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-23.

REVERSED

mls