Ex Parte Ash et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

13167184 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/167,184 06/23/2011
64956 7590 04/03/2018
HAHN LOESER I LINCOLN
200 Public Square, Suite 2800
Cleveland, OH 44114
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Elliott Ash
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.
201990.05796 7493
EXAMINER
HOANG, TUBA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2018 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):
patents@hahnlaw.com
ip@lincolnelectric.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ELLIOTT ASH, WILLIAM MATTHEWS, and
JAMES E. HEARN
Appeal2016-003480
Application 13/167, 184
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2016-003480
Application 13/167, 184
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-17, 21, and
22. 2,3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates to a welding system with a
controller "that controls the motor to produce a known acceleration and
adjusts the arc based on the motor acceleration and actual wire feed speed
during start up." Spec. para. 1. Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, illustrates the
claimed subject matter.
1. A welding system comprising:
a power supply;
a torch electrically connected to said power supply;
a wire feeder having a motor, said wire feeder providing a
welding consumable to said torch;
a controller, said controller being in communication with
said motor and said power supply;
wherein said controller obtains a wire feed speed of said
motor as it accelerates from a run-in speed to a pre-set speed
1 The real party in interest is identified as Lincoln Global, Inc. App. Br. 4.
2 These are all the claims pending in the application, except claim 18 is
withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 1. Appellants attempted to cancel
claim 22 in the Response to Final Office Action (filed Apr. 2, 2015). The
Advisory Action indicates the amendment was not entered, but also omits
claim 22 from the list of claims. Adv. Act. 1. Appellants' briefing and the
Examiner's Answer, however, indicate claim 22 remains pending and
rejected. See App. Br. 4; Ans. 2. Thus, we consider claim 22 to be before us
on appeal.
3 The Final Action is supplemented by an Advisory Action (dated Apr. 30,
2015).
2
Appeal2016-003480
Application 13/167, 184
and controls the power supplied to the torch based on said wire
feed speed.
Rejections4
I. Claims 1--4, 8, 10, 13, 15, and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated byNaoki (JP 2009-101370 A, published
May 14, 2009). 5 Final Act. 6-9.
II. Claims 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Naoki and Kramer (US 6,087,627, issued July 11, 2000).
Final Act. 10.
III. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Naoki and Sasano (US 2002/0011474 Al, published Jan.
31,2002). FinalAct.10-11.
IV. Claims 11, 12, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable overNaoki and Stanzel et al. (US 2007/0181553
Al, published Aug. 9, 2007) (hereinafter "Stanzel"). Final Act. 11-13.
V. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over N aoki and Gibbs et al. (US 3,906,184, issued Sept. 16,
197 5) (hereinafter "Gibbs"). Final Act. 13.
VI. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Naoki and Freytag (US 3,509,314, issued Apr. 28, 1970).
Final Act. 13-14.
4 In the Answer, the Examiner withdraws the rejections of claims under
35 U.S.C. § 112. Ans. 3; see Final Act. 3---6.
5 A machine translation ofNaoki in English was included with the Advisory
Action. Citations to Naoki's text are to the machine translation.
3
Appeal2016-003480
Application 13/167, 184
DISCUSSION
Rejection I -Anticipation by Naoki
Appellants argue "Naoki does not disclose the obtainment of a wire
feed speed during an acceleration from a run-in speed to a pre-set speed," as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 23. Appellants cite paragraph 13 of the
Specification for its description of the arc initiation period that occurs
between run-in and steady state welding operations. Id. at 24. Appellants
also summarize the teachings of paragraphs 17 through 23 of the English
translation of N aoki and argue N aoki does not detect speed during
acceleration from a run-in speed to a pre-set wire feed speed and does not
correlate power output based on the detected speed. Id. at 25-26.
Appellants contend that even paragraph 20 ofNaoki, "which discusses
synchronizing speed and voltage, is not basing such off a changing detected
speed between run-in and pre-set, but at best the described presets of
Naoki." Id. at 26.
The Examiner finds Naoki discloses all elements of claim 1, and in
particular finds paragraphs 7 and 17 through 19 of the Naoki translation
refer to a "'slowdown speed"' and "'regular wire feeding speed."' Final
Act. 6-7; see id. at 15-16. The Examiner maintains the anticipation
rejection in the Answer but provides no further explanation responding to
Appellants' arguments regarding Naoki. Ans. 2.
We agree with Appellants that, based on the machine translation,
Naoki does not appear to disclose "wherein said controller obtains a wire
feed speed of said motor as it accelerates from a run-in speed to a pre-set
speed and controls the power supplied to the torch based on said wire feed
speed" (the "wire feed speed" limitation), as recited in claim 1.
4
Appeal2016-003480
Application 13/167, 184
Appellants' Specification states:
Arc initiation is the period of time between run in of the welding
consumable and the steady state welding process. The arc
initiation period typically starts when the arc is established by the
welder. This period is characterized by the welding consumable
being accelerated from the run in speed, which may be zero, to
the desired steady state welding speed for a given welding
process. The desired wire feed speed for the process may be
established by the user or a controller.
Spec. para. 13. The Specification further provides:
To obtain that pre-set wire feed speed, motor 30 must accelerate
from the run in speed to the pre-set wire feed speed. This
typically results in some overshoot of the desired wire feed speed
by the motor as it accelerates. The acceleration characteristics of
the motor often vary from motor to motor such that the rate of
acceleration and amount of over shoot cannot be adequately
predicted. Consequently, the quality of the weld may suffer.
Id., para. 21. To obtain the wire feed speed at a given instant, the
Specification teaches use of "feedback from motor 30 ... to determine the
actual wire feed speed," such as from a speed sensor, id., para. 22, or
accelerating the motor at a known ramp rate and integrating the known
acceleration to provide an actual wire feed speed, id., para. 23. See also id.,
para. 25 ("Upon receiving an actual wire feed speed from motor 30 or upon
calculating an instantaneous wire feed speed from the motor's acceleration,
the work point value is updated and the arc voltage controlled based on the
wire feed speed to correlate these values in real time." (emphasis added)); id.
("By correlating the arc to the actual wire feed speed, better synchronization
of the arc is achieved during arc initiation, reducing the likelihood of splatter
or stubbing." (emphasis added)).
Based on the Specification's description of motor characteristics and
overshoot, as well as the methods disclosed to obtain the wire feed speed, we
5
Appeal2016-003480
Application 13/167, 184
conclude that "obtain[ing] a wire feed speed of said motor as it accelerates
from a run-in speed to a pre-set speed," even under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of these limitations of claim 1, must involve more than
determining a motor speed set by the controller during acceleration. The
machine translation ofNaoki, however, is silent as to obtaining any speed
other than that set by its controller.
As the Examiner recognizes, Naoki teaches changing the feeding
speed from a first feeding speed to a regular wire feeding speed that is
higher than the first feeding speed. Naoki para. 7. For a given time, Naoki
also "synchronizes" the change in wire feeding speed with the welding
voltage, and after a "first time passes" the "welding voltage will be
continuously changed from the above-mentioned first welding voltage
toward the above-mentioned regular welding voltage irrespective of a wire
feeding speed." Id. Naoki does not, however, disclose how the wire feeding
speed is known.
N aoki discloses detecting welding current and detecting welding
voltage, but teaches a "wire feeding speed control part 11 for controlling the
wire feeder 12" and does not address the issue of whether the actual speed
may be different than that set by the controller. Id., para. 13. Thus, Naoki
suggests that its system relies on the wire feeding speed that is set, rather
than obtaining the speed through a sensor or calculating it based on known
properties of the motor. Naoki comes closest to indicating that the actual
speed is known in disclosing that "[ t ]he feeding speed of the wire 13 is made
to increase from slowdown speed gradually at a fixed ratio to the wire
feeding part 12 toward a predetermined regular wire feeding speed quicker
than this slowdown speed." Id., para. 19 (emphasis added); see Fig. 2. Still,
6
Appeal2016-003480
Application 13/167, 184
however, without any discussion of known properties of the motor or a
sensor, it appears that Naoki's "fixed ratio" refers to intermediate speeds that
are set and not to the actual speed, which may deviate from a set or
"controlled" speed at a given instant. Thus, although Naoki addresses a
similar problem and may perhaps achieve similar results as the claimed
invention, 6 Naoki appears to do so in a slightly different way. Accordingly,
on this record, anticipation of claim 1 is not established by a preponderance
of the evidence.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Naoki. Independent claim 13 similarly requires "means for
obtaining a wire feed speed from said motor as it accelerates from a run-in
speed to a pre-set wire feed speed" and recites "wherein as the motor
accelerates, said means for correlating communicates with said means for
obtaining and said power supply to generate a selected power output to said
torch based on said wire feed speed." Accordingly, for the same reasons, we
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 or the rejection of
dependent claims 2--4, 8, 10, 15, and 17 rejected on the same ground.
6 Similar to the benefits described in paragraph 2 of Appellants'
Specification, Naoki teaches:
Arc start nature is made to improve, and generating of a
sputtering and adhesion of a sputtering can be reduced, without
starting the arc instability immediately after a start. Compared
with the case where it is made to change rapidly, a welding
condition can be stabilized by changing welding voltage
gradually continuously.
N aoki para. 9.
7
Appeal2016-003480
Application 13/167, 184
Rejections II-VI
Rejections II-VI rely on the same unsupported findings as the
rejection of claims 1and13 discussed supra. See Final Act. 10-14. In the
Advisory Action and Answer, however, the Examiner finds that Stanzel,
which was used only in rejecting claims 11, 12, 21, and 22 in combination
with Naoki, also teaches the disputed limitations of independent claims 1
and 13 discussed herein. Adv. Act. (Continuation Sheet); Ans. 3--4.
Although Stanzel was not used by the Examiner in formally rejecting
independent claims 1 and 13, we consider whether the Examiner's findings
regarding Stanzel may cure the deficiencies in the rejection of those claims
such that the rejection of claims based on Stanzel may be sustained.
Appellants note that Stanzel's "AUTO" setting for wire feed speed
"automatically links the voltage level setting and the wire-feed speed setting,
automatically adjusting the wire-feed speed setting based on the selected
voltage level setting." App. Br. 28 (quoting Stanzel para. 19). Appellants
contend Stanzel's automatic adjustment sets the wire feed speed, rather than
obtaining it as required by the independent claims. Id.
The Examiner finds Stanzel's "'adjusting' at least implies involving
'obtaining' as well because varying a speed means that the speed was
'obtained,' i.e., measured, sensed, detected, monitored, etc., before or after
the adjustment." Ans. 4 (citing Stanzel paras. 19-24). In particular, the
Examiner notes Stanzel' s teaching that the wire feed speed, "rather than
being selected from a look-up table, can be determined based on an
appropriate algorithm, each algorithm corresponding to the type and kind of
wire electrode employed, among other techniques." Id. (quoting Stanzel
para. 23 (emphasis in Examiner's Answer)).
8
Appeal2016-003480
Application 13/167, 184
We agree with Appellants that Stanzel's teachings relate to setting the
desired wire-feed speed, which, as discussed supra, is not sufficient to teach
the wire feed speed limitation of claim 1 or the similar limitations in claim
13. In context, the sentences from paragraph 23 of Stanzel quoted by the
Examiner indicate that an algorithm may be used to determine a desired wire
feed speed, and that this desired speed will then be set. See Stanzel para. 23
(describing an "exemplary mechanism for coupled control of the wire-feed
speed and voltage level" based on the kind or size of welding wire used,
wherein look-up tables are used "to select the wire-feed setting for the given
voltage setting"). Thus, Stanzel determines which speed to set and does not
obtain the actual wire feed speed, such as through a sensor or calculating it
based on known properties of the motor.
In addition, we note that the Examiner's reasoning for combining
Stanzel with Naoki relates only to Stanzel's memory and look-up table and
does not further address obtaining a wire feed speed as the motor accelerates
from a run-in speed to a pre-set speed. Final Act. 13 (para. 42); see Ans. 5
(stating "the motivation to combine has been provided in paragraph( s) 31,
35, 42, 45, and 48 of the prior final action" and that "[s]ince the motivation
to combine has been provided for a person having ordinary skill in the art,
no detailed discussion is necessary").
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision
rejecting as unpatentable under§ 103(a): claims 5 and 9 over Naoki and
Kramer; claims 6 and 7 over Naoki and Sasano; claims 11, 12, 21, and 22
over Naoki and Stanzel; claim 14 over Naoki and Gibbs; and claim 16 over
Naoki and Freytag.
9
Appeal2016-003480
Application 13/167, 184
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 8, 10, 13, 15, and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We reverse the Examiner's rejections of
claims 5-7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
10