Ex Parte Harkare et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2018

14664287 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/664,287 03/20/2015 Sriram Harkare
141825 7590 12/03/2018
The Lincoln Electric Company
22801 Saint Clair Avenue
Legal Department
Cleveland, OH 44117
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.
2013-153-US-NP 7604
EXAMINER
HOANG, MICHAEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2018 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):
ip@lincolnelectric.com
desiree _ cunin @lincolnelectric.com
ginger_mcghee@lincolnelectric.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRIRAM HARKARE and CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS
Appeal2018-002205
Application 14/664,287
Technology Center 3700
Before RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, PAUL J. KORNICZKY, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Lincoln Global, Inc., which the Appeal Brief
identifies as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2018-002205
Application 14/664,287
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to "devices, systems and methods
for plasma cutting operations." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the
only independent claim.
1. An integrated plasma cutting system, the system
compnsmg:
a plasma cutting power supply to provide a desired
current to at least one torch to create a plasma arc to cut a
workpiece;
a motion control device to move the torch along a desired
cut path relative to the workpiece;
a torch height control device to adjust a gap between a tip
of the torch and the workpiece;
a gas control device to regulate at least one of a gas
selection, a gas flow rate and a gas pressure of at least one gas
used in the integrated plasma cutting system; and
a centralized controller to control each of the plasma
cutting power supply, the motion control device, the torch
height control device and the gas control device,
wherein the centralized controller includes an integrated
microprocessor architecture that controls sequences of the
respective plasma arcs, controls the regulation of the at least
one gas used in the integrated plasma cutting system,
determines an order and positioning of cuts based on user input
information, and controls coordination of the movement of the
torch along the cut path with adjusting the gap of the torch,
without aid of an intervening microprocessor architecture in any
one of the plasma cutting power supply, the motion control
device, the torch height control device and the gas control
device.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2018-002205
Application 14/664,287
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections on appeal:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Picard. 2
2. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Picard and
Wardlaw III. 3
3. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Picard and
Henderson. 4
4. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Picard and
Hillen. 5
5. Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Picard and
Riemann. 6
6. Claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Picard and Couch Jr. 7
7. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Picard and
Nakano. 8
2 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0204283 Al, published Oct. 30, 2003
("Picard").
3 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0134995 Al, published May 28, 2009
("Wardlaw III").
4 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0043220 Al, published Feb. 21, 2013
("Henderson").
5 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0199566 Al, published Aug. 9, 2012 ("Hillen").
6 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0298632 Al, published Nov. 29, 2012
("Riemann").
7 U.S. Patent No. 3,787,247, issued Jan. 22, 1974 ("Couch Jr.").
8 JPH05-245647 (A), published Sept. 24, 1993 ("Nakano").
3
Appeal2018-002205
Application 14/664,287
ANALYSIS
In the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Picard, the
Examiner found that Picard's centralized numeric controller ("CNC") 12
discloses the claimed "centralized controller" that controls the items listed in
the claim. Final Act. 3. The Examiner also found that Picard discloses the
claimed "microprocessor" to control aspects of the claimed devices9
"without aid of an intervening microprocessor" in any of the devices. Id.
The Examiner found that Picard's controller 12 "exclusively" controls the
devices without an intervening microprocessor because if there were such a
processor, "Picard would disclose this feature." Adv. Act. 2 (mailed May
11, 2017). As a matter of claim construction, the Examiner found that
"without aid" in claim 1 is "subject to a broad interpretation" and that Picard
satisfies the limitation as long as there is an absence of aid in any one of "the
plasma cutting power supply, the motion control device, the torch height
control device and the gas control device." Ans. 3. The Examiner also
construed the "without aid" limitation as pertaining to only the last of the list
functions of the microprocessor in the centralized controller-"controls
coordination of the movement of the torch along the cut path with adjusting
the gap of the torch." Id. Using the Examiner's reading of the claim, Picard
need only disclose a gas control device that does not aid "any controlled
9 The microprocessor "controls sequences of the respective plasma arcs,
controls the regulation of the at least one gas used in the integrated plasma
cutting system, determines an order and positioning of cuts based on user
input information, and controls coordination of the movement of the torch
along the cut path with adjusting the gap of the torch." Appeal Br. 14
(Claims App.).
4
Appeal2018-002205
Application 14/664,287
coordination and gap adjustment that is executed by Picard's centralized
controller." Id.
Appellant argues that Picard does not state that it lacks an intervening
microprocessor, and does not inherently disclose the absence of such a
microprocessor. Appeal Br. 5---6. According to Appellant, the "mere
inclusion of a CNC" does not inherently "mean that no intervening
microprocessor" is present in the system. Id. at 7. Appellant argues that
"conventional" drive systems such as those Picard discloses include the
possibility that Picard's drive system "includes intervening microprocessor
architecture to interpret the commands from Picard's CNC to then drive the
drive system." Id. Appellant also contests the Examiner's claim
construction because it assumes the claim requirements are met if any one of
the devices listed in the claim lack an intervening processor. Id. at 8.
Appellant contends that the Examiner improperly construes the phrase "in
any one of' in isolation, and that, in the context with the rest of the claim
language and the specification, the phrase should be construed as "all of."
Reply Br. 7. As a result, according to Appellant, the claim requires no
intervening microprocessor controller between the claimed "centralized
controller" and all of the claimed devices. Id. at 6-7; Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant has the better position regarding the construction of the
claim. The phrase "without aid of an intervening microprocessor
architecture in any one of the" claimed devices, standing alone, does not
mandate a conclusion that the claim requires the lack of aid from a
microprocessor in all of the claimed devices. Reading that claim language in
light of related claim language and the specification, however, supports
Appellant's interpretation. For example, before the "without aid" limitation,
5
Appeal2018-002205
Application 14/664,287
the claim requires a "centralized controller" with a microprocessor that
performs a number of specific functions for the claimed devices. Appeal Br.
14 (Claims App.). The centralized controller would lack its "centralized"
nature if the claim allowed for additional processors to perform the functions
of the centralized controller. Further, the specification describes problems
with the conventional, "decentralized" approach where "[ e Jach individual
component of this system has its own electronics and software/firmware
executed by a microprocessor." Spec. ,r 3. The specification also describes
the claimed invention as eliminating the need for those separate, discrete
microprocessor control systems because single controller 213 (i.e.,
"centralized controller") controls all of the operations in a single module.
Id. ,r 15; see also id. at ,r 28 ("[T]here is no intervening microprocessing
controller which acts as an intermediate controller between the controller
213 and the various movement or operating components of the peripheral
devices."). It makes little sense to construe the claim as allowing for most of
the devices to have their own microprocessors performing the functions of
the centralized controller, with only one of them lacking such a
microprocessor, when the related claim language and specification stress the
importance of having a centralized controller that performs all of the claimed
functions.
Because the Examiner's analysis employed an improperly broad
construction of claim 1, the related findings regarding Picard do not track the
scope of the claim. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
as anticipated by Picard, or claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 16-20 that
ultimately depend from claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejections of
claims 3, 6, 9, and 12-15, which ultimately depend from claim 1 and are
6
Appeal2018-002205
Application 14/664,287
subject to various obviousness rejections. Final Act. 7-14. The Examiner
does not rely on the additional references in a manner that remedies the
deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 discussed above. See id.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20.
REVERSED
7