Ex Parte Broadwater et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2013

11419485 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte RANDY R. BROADWATER and JOSEPH K. FINK
____________________

Appeal 2011-010161
Application 11/419,485
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, HYUN J. JUNG, and ADAM V. FLOYD,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010161
Application 11/419,485

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Randy R. Broadwater and Joseph K. Fink (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-9 and 16-20. App. Br. 5. The
Examiner has withdrawn claims 10-15 from consideration. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate “to welding with a system suitable for automated
welding.” Spec. 1:4-5. Claims 1, 16, and 18 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A welding system for use as a robotic and
hand[-]held welder, comprising:
a power circuit having at least one control
input;
a controller having at least one power
control output connected to the at least one control
input, wherein the controller further includes a
robot detector, a hand-held module responsive to
the robot detector, and a robot interface responsive
to the robot detector; and
a user interface;
wherein the hand[-]held module includes an
input connected to receive at least one welding
parameter setpoint from the user interface, and
wherein the hand[-]held module further is
connected to receive a signal indicative of a
welding hand[-]held trigger from a welding gun,
and is further connected to the at least one power
control output; and
wherein the robot interface is connected to
receive a signal indicative of at least one robot
welding parameter from the robot detector and
Appeal 2011-010161
Application 11/419,485

3
further is connected to the at least one power
control output.
REJECTIONS
The Appellants seek our review of the rejections of:
claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ihde (US
6,627,849 B2; iss. Sep. 30, 2003); and
claims 1-9, 16, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ihde and Lipnevicius (US 2006/0138116 A1; pub. Jun. 29, 2006).

ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Ihde
For independent claim 18, the Examiner finds that Ihde discloses,
inter alia, “second means for obtaining the at least one welding parameter
input from a user interface if the welding gun is detected (302 and 303 as
shown in [F]ig[ure] 3).” Ans. 4.
The Appellants argue that Ihde discloses “a single way of obtaining
welding parameters -- from the robot controller” because Ihde “is a robotic
only system.” Br. 12 (citing Ihde, col. 6, ll. 3-8). The Appellants also argue
that “Ihde does not teach how [] to detect a welding gun (again, it is only a
robotic system).” Id. The Appellants further argue that the “Examiner cited
(again) controller 302 and microprocessor 303 as being the claimed ‘second
means for obtaining . . . ’” but “controller 302 and microprocessor 303
have/are a single means to set parameters -- they are not a second means that
sets parameters in response to a [welding] gun being detected.” Id.
The Examiner responds that Ihde discloses a
robot system and part of the robot system includes [a] welding
gun (as shown the extended part of element 106 in [F]igure[]1)
Appeal 2011-010161
Application 11/419,485

4
and so overall the welding gun is part of [the] robot and the
robot system includes [a] controller that has [a] robot type
detector that detects robot type which includes [the] welding
gun . . . from the information obtained through [the] interface.
Ans. 8.
The Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. The Examiner cites
controller 302 and microprocessor 303 for the “means for obtaining at least
one welding parameter input from the robot through the means for
interfacing, if the robot is detected” and the “second means for obtaining the
at least one welding parameter input from a user interface if the welding gun
is detected.” Ans. 4. However, Ihde does not disclose that the same
controller 302 and microprocessor 303 are or can be considered a second
means to obtain at least one welding parameter when a welding gun is
detected, as required by independent claim 18. Thus, Ihde does not support
the Examiner’s finding by a preponderance of the evidence.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 and
its dependent claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ihde.
Unpatentability over Ihde and Lipnevicius
For independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ihde substantially
teaches the subject matter of claim 1, but fails to teach a hand-held module.
Ans. 5-6. The Examiner finds that “Lipnevicius teaches . . . a hand-held
module (70 as shown in [F]ig[ure] 1) responsive to the robot detector, . . .
wherein the hand[-]held module (70 as shown in [F]ig[ure] 1) further is
connected to receive a signal indicative of a welding hand[-]held trigger
(240 as shown in fig. 6) from a welding gun (200 as shown in [F]ig[ure] 6).”
Ans. 7. The Examiner reasons that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to
modify Ihde with [a] welding gun as taught by Lipnevicius in order to
Appeal 2011-010161
Application 11/419,485

5
position [the] welding gun in set position and [for] providing the user to
operate in manual welding procedures.” Id.
The Appellants argue that element 70 of Lipnevicius “is a robot gun”
that “does not receive a signal from a welding gun” because “it provides the
signal.” Br. 14 (citing Lipnevicius, para. [0032]). The Appellants also argue
that element “240 is a hand[-]held gun, but is used in place of robot gun 70”
and “never provides a signal to item 70 because one or the other is used, not
both.” Br. 14. The Examiner responds that “the secondary reference,
Lipnevicius, teaches [the] hand[-]held gun in [F]igures 6-7 and combining
Ihde with [the] hand held gun of Lipnevicius would have yielded predictable
results and resulted in an improved system.” Ans. 9.
The Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. Lipnevicius states that
“FIG. 1 is a perspective view of an automatic or semi-automatic welder
system” and that “FIGS. 6 and 7 are a perspective view of a manual welder
system.” Lipnevicius, paras. [0026] and [0030]. Lipnevicius does not
disclose that the welding gun 70 shown in Figure 1 is connected to receive a
signal indicative of the trigger 240 shown in Figure 6. See Lipnevicius,
paras. [0031]-[0038]. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that the welding gun 70
of Lipnevicius is a hand-held module that is connected to receive a signal
indicative of a welding hand-held trigger from a welding gun, as required by
claim 1, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore,
the Examiner’s reasoning that combining Ihde with the hand-held gun of
Lipnevicius for positioning the welding gun in a set position and providing
the user with manual welding or would yield predictable results and an
improved system does not adequately explain why the skilled artisan would
connect the welding gun 70 and trigger 240 of Lipnevicius so that the
Appeal 2011-010161
Application 11/419,485

6
welding gun 70 receives a signal indicative of the trigger 240, as called for
in claim 1.
For independent claim 16, the Examiner finds that Ihde teaches an
adaptor cord “wherein the signals provided on the plurality of connectors
indicate the presence of a welding [gun] and the absence of a robot (106 as
shown in [F]ig[ure] 1).” Ans. 6.
The Appellants argue that the “adaptor cord, in addition to being
connected to a hand[-]held gun, must provide signals that indicate the
presence of a welding gun and the absence of a robot.” Br. 15. The
Examiner responds that,
Ihde teaches [a] robot system and part of the robot system
includes [a] welding gun (as shown the extended part of
element 106 in [F]igure[]1) and so overall the welding gun is
part of [the] robot and the robot system includes [a] controller
that has [a] robot type detector that detects robot type which
includes [the] welding gun (as shown the extended part of
element 106 in [F]igure[]1) from the information obtained
through interface.
Ans. 10.
The Appellants’ argument is persuasive. Ihde does not disclose that
the signals provided on the connectors of the adaptor cord 402 indicate the
presence of a welding gun and the absence of a robot, as required by claim
16. See Ihde, col. 6, l. 63 – col. 7, l. 4. The Examiner’s findings of Ihde’s
robot with a welding gun do not address the claim limitation directed to
signals indicating the absence of the robot. Therefore, Ihde does not
support, by a preponderance of the evidence, the Examiner’s finding
regarding this limitation of claim 16. Also, the Examiner’s reasoning that
“[i]t would have been obvious . . . to modify Ihde with [the] welding gun as
taught by Lipnevicius in order to position [the] welding gun in set position
Appeal 2011-010161
Application 11/419,485

7
and [for] providing the user to operate in manual welding positions” does
not address the signals of the adaptor cord. See Ans. 7.
Accordingly, for the reasons supra, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1 and 16 or dependent claims 2-9, 17, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ihde and Lipnevicius.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-9 and 16-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls