Ex Parte Albrecht et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2018

13234838 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/234,838 09/16/2011
23721 7590 06/21/2018
GEORGE R. CORRIGAN
CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE
2168 COLLADAY POINT DRIVE
STOUGHTON, WI 53589
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bruce P. Albrecht
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.
ITW60148 7372
EXAMINER
LAROSE, RENEE MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2018 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):
george.corrigan@corrigan.pro
gcorrigan@new.rr.com
kari.brekke@corrigan.pro
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUCE P. ALBRECHT and NATHAN G. LEITERITZ
Appeal2016-003572
Application 13/234, 83 81
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Bruce P. Albrecht and Nathan G. Leiteritz ("Appellants") appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1,
3-12, and 20, which constitute all of the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants identify "Illinois Tool Works Inc." as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2016-003572
Application 13/234,838
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 7, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal and are
reproduced below.
1. A welding gun for reducing spatter including, a path for
wire through the gun, a liner, disposed about the wire path for at
least a portion of the path through the gun, a solenoid, having an
activated position that impinges on the wire path, and a
deactivated position that does not impinge on the wire path, and
a control circuit, including a feedback input and further including
a control output connected to the solenoid, and wherein the liner
includes a widened region where the solenoid is located that acts
as a buffer for the wire, wherein the solenoid pushes the wire into
the buffer.
7. A welding gun for reducing spatter including, a path for
feeding wire through the gun, a liner, disposed about the wire
path for at least a portion of the path through the gun, and at least
one of a motor, electromagnetic brake, and particle brake,
connected to a roller that has an active mode at the start of the
welding process that impedes wire feeding and an inactive mode
that does not affect wire feeding, and a control circuit, including
a feedback input and further including a control output connected
to the motor.
20. A welding gun for reducing spatter, comprising:
means for sensing a welding output parameter indicative
of an impending short clearing;
means for restraining the feeding of the welding wire by
pushing the wire into a buff er located at the means for
restraining, wherein the means for restraining is responsive to the
means for sensing; and
means for ceasing the restraining of the feeding of the
welding wire, wherein the means for ceasing is responsive to the
means for sensing.
Appeal Br. 16-18, Claims App.
2
Appeal2016-003572
Application 13/234,838
Rejections
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
I. Claims 1, 3---6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Huismann (US 2006/0226137 Al, pub. Oct. 12, 2006);
and
II. Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Huismann and Gilliland (US 5,540,371, iss. July 30,
1996).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART. We designate our affirmance of claim 20 as
a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant to our authority under 37
C.F.R. § 4I.50(b).
Claims 1 and 3-6
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner determines that Huismann would have rendered the
subject matter of claims 1 and 3---6 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention. Final Act. 2-5 (mailed Jan. 30, 2015). The
Examiner finds that Huismann discloses the elements of the claims, but
"does not specifically call out the specifics of and wherein the liner includes
a widened region where the solenoid is located that acts as a buffer for the
wire, wherein the solenoid pushes the wire into the buffer." Id. at 3. The
Examiner, however, finds that Huismann's teaching-that "a solenoid in the
torch is used to deflect the wire"-"implies that there is somewhere for the
wire to be deflected to = a widened region where the solenoid is located that
3
Appeal2016-003572
Application 13/234,838
acts as a buffer for the wire, wherein the solenoid pushes the wire into the
buffer." Id. Thus, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious "to
include a solenoid on the torch to push the wire into a widened region, a
buffer, such that a solenoid is used to alter the wire path length in or near the
torch, thus 'taking up' the wire being fed from the reel." Id. at 3--4 (citing
Huismann ,r 35).
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred by not considering other
wire/liner arrangements that do not have a widened area. Appeal Br. 12.
Appellants assert that "it is possible to deflect the wire so that it is pinched
against the liner, and the wire is simply stopped or slowed." Id. In that
arrangement, "[ n Jo buffer is needed in the gun, because excess wire can be
taken up downstream of the gun." Id. As support for their argument that a
widened region is not implied necessarily by Huismann's disclosure,
Appellants point to their Specification and an embodiment in which a
solenoid pinches a wire against a liner without deflecting the wire into a
widened region. Id. (citing Spec. ,r 26). Thus, Appellants' contend the
Examiner's finding that a widened region is implied by Huismann's
disclosure is erroneous. Id.
The Examiner reiterates the same findings in the Answer and includes
additional description from Huismann regarding the disclosure of the liner,
wire, and tube. In particular, the Examiner points to the following from
Huismann:
The buffer may be anything that stores and returns the
extra wire, or provides an increased wire path length between the
source and the torch. The buff er of the preferred embodiment
includes a wire liner about the wire for at least a portion of the
distance from the source to the torch. The liner is disposed in a
tube that is wider, and the liner can bend and flex within the tube,
4
Appeal2016-003572
Application 13/234,838
thus increasing the length of wire/in a given length of tube. The
tube is mounted to a hollow shaft, and the wire passes through
the shaft.
Huismann ,r 37; Ans. 7 (quoting the same).
In their Reply Brief, Appellants reiterate the argument raised in their
Appeal Brief, noting that the Examiner appears to rely upon inherency, but
that a widened area at the solenoid "does not necessarily flow from the
teaching of deflecting the wire." Reply Br. 1-2.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown, on the
present record, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify Huismann to meet the subject matter of claims 1 and 3-6.
Claim 1 recites "wherein the liner includes a widened region where the
solenoid is located that acts as a buffer for the wire, wherein the solenoid
pushes the wire into the buffer." Appeal Br. 16, Claims App.
First, Huismann's teaching that a wire is deflected does not mean
necessarily that the wire is deflected to a widened region. In particular, the
phrase "the liner includes a widened region where the solenoid is located"
implies that the liner is wider at the solenoid than at some other region of the
liner. That Huismann's liner is flexible and able to bend, does not does not
mean necessarily that the liner has a wider region at the solenoid.
Second, it is not clear precisely which teaching of Huismann the
Examiner intends to modify, if any. The Examiner finds that it would have
been obvious "to include a solenoid on the torch to push the wire into a
widened region, a buffer, such that a solenoid is used to alter the wire path
length in or near the torch, thus 'taking up' the wire being fed from the reel."
Final Act. 3--4. But, Huismann already teaches a solenoid on the torch
pushing a wire to alter the wire path length. See Huismann ,r,r 35, 37.
5
Appeal2016-003572
Application 13/234,838
Additionally, the Examiner finds that Huismann teaches a widened region
based on Huismann's disclosure that the wire is deflected by the solenoid.
Final Act. 3. Thus, according to the Examiner, each of these elements of the
claims is taught already by Huismann. Even if we were to assume that the
Examiner intended to modify some aspect of the solenoid/wire/liner
arrangement of Huismann, the Examiner fails to provide any reason as to
why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to make such
modification.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3---6.
Claim 20
Claim 20 is directed to a welding gun for reducing spatter and recites,
inter alia, "means for restraining the feeding of the welding wire by pushing
the wire into a buffer located at the means for restraining." Appeal Br. 18,
Claims App. The Examiner appears to treat claim 20 as though it too recites
a widened region. See Final Act. 5-6 ("' [A] solenoid in the torch is used to
deflect the wire' implies that there is somewhere for the wire to be deflected
to = a widened region where the solenoid is located that acts as a buffer for
the wire, wherein the solenoid pushes the wire into the buffer .... [i]t would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a solenoid on the torch
to push the wire into a widened region, a buffer and the solenoid being the
means for restraining." ( emphasis omitted)). Appellants' argument directed
to claim 20 and the Examiner's response are similar to the positions taken
with respect to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13-16; Ans. 9-10.
Claims 1 and 20, however, are different in several respects, most
notably that claim 20 recites a "means for restraining the feeding of the
welding wire by pushing the wire into a buffer located at the means for
6
Appeal2016-003572
Application 13/234,838
restraining," whereas claim 1 recites "a widened region." The use of the
word "means" creates a presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph six
applies. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
2015) ( en bane). The Appellants agree that this clause of claim 20 is drafted
in means-plus-function terms. Appeal Br. 8; see Ans. 9 (recognizing the
"means for" language of the claim). Thus, in this case, the presumption has
not been overcome and we agree with Appellants that this clause of claim 20
is drafted in means-plus-function form.
The function recited by this clause of claim 20 is "restraining the
feeding of the welding wire by pushing the wire into a buffer located at the
means for restraining." The Specification discloses a solenoid as the
structure corresponding to this function. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 27 ("When
solenoid 106 is activated and pushes downward (toward wire 102), it
pinches wire 102 against liner 104, thus slowing or stopping wire 102.
Solenoid 106 can be designed to always stop the wire, always slow the wire,
or allow the user to select either slowing or stopping."); see also Appeal
Br. 8 (identifying solenoid 106 as the corresponding structure). In this
embodiment, "[ t ]he upstream length of liner 102 ( toward the right of
solenoid 106) acts as a buffer for wire 102 when solenoid 106 is activated."
Spec. ,r 27.
Huismann discloses a solenoid: "For example, a solenoid in the torch
is used to deflect the wire, effectively slowing, stopping or reversing the
advancement of the wire to the weld." Huismann ,r 3 5. Thus, Huismann
teaches a structure identical to that disclosed by the Specification-a
solenoid-and satisfies the "means for restraining" language of the claim.
7
Appeal2016-003572
Application 13/234,838
We do not consider any other aspect of the means for restraining
limitation of claim 20 to recite structure. Nonetheless, Huismann also
discloses "a buffer located at the means for restraining." In particular,
Huismann teaches the following:
As the reversible motors retract the wire (and the wire feed motor
continues to feed the wire) a buff er is provided to account for the
increase in wire between the wire feed motor and the reversible
motors. Similarly, when the reversible motors advance the wire,
wire is withdrawn from the buffer. ...
The buff er may be anything that stores and returns the
extra wire, or provides an increased wire path length between the
source and the torch. The buff er of the preferred embodiment
includes a wire liner about the wire for at least a portion of the
distance from the source to the torch. The liner is disposed in a
tube that is wider, and the liner can bend and flex within the tube,
thus increasing the length of wire/in a given length of tube.
Huismann ,r,r 36, 37.
Huismann's teaching is similar to Appellants' Specification's
description of Figure 2. "The upstream length of liner 102 ( toward the right
of solenoid 106) acts as a buffer for wire 102 when solenoid 106 is
activated." Spec. ,r 27. Thus, even ifwe were to consider "a buffer located
at the means for restraining" as a structural element of claim 20, Huismann
teaches said buffer.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 20. Out of an
abundance of caution, we designate our affirmance of the rejection as a
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION.
Rejection II
The Examiner determines that the combination of Huismann and
Gilliland would have rendered the subject matter of claims 7-12 obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Final Act. 6-8.
8
Appeal2016-003572
Application 13/234,838
In particular, the Examiner finds that Huismann discloses most of the
elements of the claim, but "does not specifically teach that the at least one of
a motor, electromagnetic brake and particle brake, connected to a roller that
has an active mode at the start of the welding process." Id. at 7. The
Examiner finds that Gilliland teaches this limitation of the claims and
determines that "it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to
modify the torch gun so that the brake is activated at the start of the process
thereby holding the wire in tension and limiting any slack in the wire
keeping arc [sic] clean." Id. (citing Gilliland, 7:20-30).
Appellants argue that Gilliland's motor "does not impede the wire";
rather, when it is activated, it pulls the wire. Appeal Br. 13.
In response, the Examiner explains that Gilliland "teaches a push/pull
system" that "require[s] a braking feature such [that] motor 30 should start
before motor 20 so that motor 30 pulls out any slack in wire 11 that may
. " A 8 exist. ns. .
Claim 7 is directed to a welding gun including "at least one of a
motor, electromagnetic brake, and particle brake connected to a roller that
has an active mode at the start of the welding process that impedes wire
feeding and an inactive mode that does not affect wire feeding." Appeal
Br. 17, Claims App. Gilliland discloses the following:
In a normal operation, when the welding operator pulls the
trigger (not shown) motor 30 will be activated first, thereby
pulling out any slack in wire 11, and then motor 20 will be
activated, thereby causing wire 11 to feed at the desired rate. It
will be appreciated that, in this configuration, motor 20 is the
controlling motor and sets the wire feed speed as motor 30 is a
slave motor and feeds wire 11 at a rate determined solely by
motor 20. Motor 20 sets the wire feed speed, rollers 32 do not
slip on wire 11, and motor 30 is configured to operate as a limited
9
Appeal2016-003572
Application 13/234,838
torque motor, so motor 30 operates at a speed which 1s
determined by motor 20.
Gilliland, 7 :9--19 ( emphasis omitted).
As reflected above, at the start of the welding process, motor 20 has a
mode that impedes wire feeding. Whether that mode is called "active" or
"inactive" is inapposite as the term is merely used to distinguish a mode in
which wire feeding is impeded from a mode in which it is not.
Additionally, the Examiner's proposed modification to Huismann is to
modify the torch so that the brake is activated at the start of the process.
Final Act. 7. In this regard, the Examiner considers Gilliland's motor 20 to
provide a braking mode at the start of the welding process. See Ans. 8
("Although Gilliland teaches a push/pull system, it does still require a
braking feature .... "). Thus, even if we were to give weight to the term
"active," the Examiner's modification to Huismann results in an active
braking feature at the start of the welding process as recited in claim 7.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7-12.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3---6.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7-12. We AFFIRM
the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 20, and designate our affirmance as
a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION.
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
10
Appeal2016-003572
Application 13/234,838
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
Examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the
Examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b)
11