Ex Parte Era

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

11725394 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111725,394 03/19/2007 Tetsuo Era
52835 7590 04/04/2016
HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P,C
45 South Seventh Street
Suite 2700
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1683
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.
10921.0462US01 4926
EXAMINER
MAYE,AYUBA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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):
PTOMail@hsml.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TETSUO ERA
Appeal2013-008666
Application 11/725,394
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, PATRICKR. SCANLON, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Tetsuo Era ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3---6, which are all the pending
claims. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). An oral hearing was held on February 25, 2016.
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Daihen
Corporation of Osaka, Japan. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2013-008666
Application 11/725,394
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosed invention "relates to a squeezing detection
control method in consumable electrode arc welding for reducing spattering
of molten metal by rapidly decreasing a welding current, immediately before
the arc restrikes, upon detection of the squeeze of the droplet during the
short circuit period." Spec., p. 1, 11. 7-12. Claims 1 and 6 are independent.
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A squeezing detection control method in consumable
electrode arc welding in which a cycle of arc generation and
short-circuiting is repeated between a consumable electrode and
a base metal, the method comprising:
detecting a squeezed droplet as a premonitory sign of arc
recurrence at an end of the short-circuiting, the detecting being
based on a fact that a differential value of a welding voltage or
resistance between the consumable electrode and the base metal
increases to a first detection reference value, the differential
value being defined as a change rate of the welding voltage or
resistance; and
detecting recurrence of the arc;
wherein the arc recurrence is detected by a fact that the
differential value of the welding voltage or resistance increases
to a second detection reference value that is greater than the
first detection reference value, subsequent to detection of the
squeezed droplet.
2
Appeal2013-008666
Application 11/725,394
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Naidu US 2004/0263183 Al Dec. 30, 2004
Myers US 2006/0207983 Al Sept. 21, 2006
Appellant's Admitted Prior Art ("AAP A") as shown in Figures 5-8
of the Drawings and as described in pages 1-13 of the Specification.
REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1 and 3-6
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA,
Myers, and Naidu.
ANALYSIS
All the claims require detection of both a squeezed droplet and
recurrence of an arc, where "arc recurrence is detected by a fact that the
differential value of the welding voltage or resistance increases to a second
detection reference value that is greater than the first detection reference
value, subsequent to detection of the squeezed droplet." See Appeal Br.,
Claims App. In rejecting the claims, the Examiner relies on Naidu for
disclosing this claimed detection of recurrence of the arc. See Final
Act. 4--5; Ans. 7. In particular, the Examiner states that Naidu discloses
such detection where the differential value of the welding voltage or
resistance increases to a second detection reference value, as recited in the
claims. See id. (citing Naidu i-fi-139, 49).
Appellant persuasively asserts, however, that Naidu "is completely
silent as to a change rate of the welding voltage or resistance," as required
3
Appeal2013-008666
Application 11/725,394
by the claims. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 6. As Appellant explains, the claims
require that "the same differential value," which the claims define as the
change rate of the welding voltage or resistance, "is checked twice at two
different reference levels"-initially against a first reference value to detect
a squeezed droplet and subsequently against a second, higher, reference
value to detect recurrence of the arc-"to determine that arc recurrence is
genuine." Appeal Br. 8; id. at Claims App.; see id. at 7-8; Reply Br. 1-2.
Specifically, we agree with Appellant's position that Naidu uses the term
"voltage differential" to refer to a simple difference in voltages, not to any
change rate of voltage at all, let alone the change rate of a welding voltage or
resistance that is checked against a reference value to detect recurrence of an
arc, as required by the claims. See Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 6 (both citing
Naidu iii! 31, 39, 49).
Appellant rightfully acknowledges that AAP A, and apparently Myers,
each teaches a single check of the change rate of the welding voltage or
resistance against a reference value to detect a squeezed droplet. See Reply
Br. 2-3 (discussing AAP A), 4---6 (discussing Myers); Record of Oral
Hearing, p. 5, 1. 20-p. 7, 1. 16 (acknowledging that AAPA and Myers teach
the initial check to detect a squeezed droplet or imminent fuse condition, and
that such a check is conventional). As to a subsequent check of the same
change rate of the welding voltage or resistance against a higher reference
value to detect recurrence of the arc-the Examiner has not properly
identified, nor do we discern, a teaching in Naidu, as relied on in the
rejection, that would teach the recited step of this subsequent check. Thus,
we agree with Appellants that the combination of AAP A, Myers, and Naidu,
4
Appeal2013-008666
Application 11/725,394
as applied in the rejection, does not teach the step of detecting recurrence of
the arc as claimed. See Appeal Br. 9--10; Reply Br. 6-7.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3---6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Myers, and
Naidu.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-6.
REVERSED
5