Ex Parte HODGES et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2018

14079799 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/079,799 11/14/2013
91854 7590 10/24/2018
Lincoln Electric Company/Perkins COIE LLP
700 Thirteenth Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005-3960
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bill HODGES
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.
072056-8221.USOO 7078
EXAMINER
WARD, THOMAS JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2018 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):
wdcle@perkinscoie.com
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
ip@lincolnelectric.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BILL HODGES and JEREMY STONE
Appeal2018-002573 1
Application 14/079, 7992
Technology Center 3700
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 4--20, 25, and 26. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our Decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
June 7, 2017) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed November 21, 2017), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed October 5, 2017), and Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed November 22, 2016).
2 Appellants identify "Lincoln Global, Inc." as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
3 Claims 21-24 are indicated as allowable (Final Act. 12; Ans. 10).
Appeal2018-002573
Application 14/079,799
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Invention
The present invention relates "to plasma arc cutting torch systems"
and more specifically to "cutting internal holes and contours in a workpiece
using a plasma torch tip system." Spec. ,r 1. Independent claim 4,
reproduced below with added emphasis, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal.
4. A plasma arc torch system configured to cut contours and
holes of different shapes and sizes in workpieces of different
thicknesses and material types, the plasma arc torch system
compnsmg:
a plasma arc torch which receives a plasma arc current
and generates a plasma arc to cut a workpiece; and
a computer numerical controller configured to:
select a piercing location in the workpiece with said
plasma arc torch;
select, from a plurality of lead in cutting geometries, a
first lead in geometry used to lead in to hole geometries and a
second lead in geometry used to lead in to contour geometries,
select, from a plurality of geometry cutting speeds, a
geometry cutting speed based on at least a thickness of said
workpiece; and
select, from a plurality of lead out cutting geometries, a
first lead out geometry when leading out from hole geometries
and a second lead out geometry when leading out from contour
geometries,
wherein for said first lead out geometry, after said
plasma arc torch reaches a lead in point from said first lead in
geometry, said computer numerical controller maintains said
plasma arc on said plasma arc torch for an overburn distance
past said lead in point and moves said plasma arc along a
perimeter of said hole geometry past said lead in point, and
wherein after said overbum distance said plasma arc current is
2
Appeal2018-002573
Application 14/079,799
turned off to said plasma arc torch and said plasma arc torch is
moved along said perimeter until said plasma arc is fully
extinguished, and
wherein for said second lead out geometry, after said
plasma torch reaches a lead in point for said contour geometry,
said computer numerical controller maintains said plasma arc
on said plasma arc torch for a tail out portion which extends
from said lead in point, where said tail out portion is cut at an
angle relative to a line coincident with the perimeter of the
contour at said lead in point at the conclusion of the creation of
the perimeter and said angle is in the range of 20 to 40 degrees.
App. Br. 20-21 (Claims Appendix.).
Rejections
1. Claims 4--9, 14--20, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b)
as anticipated by Lindsay et al. (US 2010/0155377 Al, pub. June 24, 2010)
("Lindsay"). 4
2. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Lindsay and Hussary et al. (US 8,168,916 B2, iss. May 1,
2012) ("Hussary").
3. Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Lindsay and Fagan (US 2005/0172764 Al, pub. Aug. 11,
2005).
4 We treat, as inadvertent error, the omission of claims 8 and 9 in the
Examiner's identification (at page 3 of the Final Office Action) of the claims
rejected as anticipated by Lindsay in view of the discussion of these claims
at page 6 of the Office Action.
3
Appeal2018-002573
Application 14/079,799
ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Lindsay
Independent claims 4 and 5, and dependent claims 8, 9, 14-20, and 25
Independent claim 4 requires, in part,
wherein for said first lead out geometry, after said plasma arc
torch reaches a lead in point from said first lead in geometry,
said computer numerical controller maintains said plasma arc
on said plasma arc torch for an overbum distance past said lead
in point and moves said plasma arc along a perimeter of said
hole geometry past said lead in point.
Claim 4 supra. The Examiner finds this limitation is disclosed by Lindsay
because
Lindsay et al clear[l]y shows a point 301 located at a
predetermined distance after the point 270 so that the torch does
not begin to decelerate until arc is substantially extinguished
(paragraph 0119, lines 4--8 and Fig. 6D). The point 270 of
Lindsay et al is consider[ ed] "overbum" since there is still
cutting taking place outside beyond the hole geometry.
Final Act. 13.
Appellants dispute this finding and argue Lindsay does not disclose
the claimed "overbum distance." App. Br. 9-11 (citing Lindsay ,r,r 117-
119; reproducing Fig. 6C). In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner
"appears to conflate 'overbum' and deceleration of the torch ... [because]
point 270 [of Lindsay] is the lead in point and the arc shuts off prior to or at
point 270." Id. at 11. "In the Response to Arguments Section, the
Examiner's Answer merely repeats the original rejection without responding
to Appellant's [sic] specific arguments that the distance between point 270
and point 290 or point 301 is not an overbum distance." Reply Br. 6.
4
Appeal2018-002573
Application 14/079,799
As Appellants point out, the Examiner does not rebut or address any
of Appellants' arguments disputing the findings in Lindsay, but merely
asserts that Appellants' "arguments are not persuasive" and replicates the
rejection in the Response to Argument section of the Answer. Ans. 11;
cf Final Act. 3--4. The rejections, however, do not map the claimed
elements to the prior art, instead summarizing aspects of the claim language
followed by a citation to a figure or passage in Lindsay, without any further
explanation. On the record before us, we are persuaded by Appellants'
arguments because the Examiner has not adequately explained or shown
how Lindsay describes a computer numerical controller that maintains said
plasma arc on said plasma arc torch for an overbum distance past said lead
in point and moves said plasma arc along a perimeter of said hole geometry
past said lead in point, as required by claim 4.
We find the disclosure of Lindsay, including paragraphs 117-119 on
which the Examiner relies, supports Appellants' position that the arc is
extinguished when it reaches point 270. For example, paragraph 117
discloses:
The cutting current can be ramped down in the third zone 210
such that the cutting current is extinguished and/ or the arc is
"shut off' ( e.g., the plasma arc torch stops cutting the
workpiece) as the plasma arc torch reaches at or near this "O
degree point" 270 (e.g., the arc shut off point).
Paragraph 118 discloses "the plasma arc torch can stop cutting (e.g., the
cutting current extinguished) as the plasma arc torch reaches at or
substantially near the 'O degree point' 270." And, paragraph 119 discloses
"the torch head can be decelerated to a stop at point 290 or 301 located at a
predetermined distance ( e.g., 1/4 of an inch) after the 'O degree point' 270 so
5
Appeal2018-002573
Application 14/079,799
that the torch does not begin to decelerate until the arc is substantially
extinguished." Because the arc is already extinguished when it reaches
point 270, Lindsay does not disclose the claimed "overbum distance," as
called for in claim 4. "[ A ]bsence from the reference of any claimed element
negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F .2d
1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Lindsay, including dependent claims 8, 9, 14--20, and 25. Because the
Examiner relies on the same erroneous finding in rejecting a substantially
similar "overbum distance" limitation in claim 5 (see Final Act. 4--5), we
also do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 5 as being anticipated
by Lindsay.
Independent claim 6 and dependent claim 26
In addressing the limitation "cut a lead in ... [that] passes through at
least 270 degrees from said center to said perimeter" of claim 6, the
Examiner finds Lindsay discloses "a circular or straight path which is the
contour 115 and 120 (Fig. 3)." Final Act. 4. Although the rejection of
claim 6 does not address the requirement of "at least 270 degrees," in
rejecting claim 7 the Examiner finds Lindsay discloses "a circular or straight
path which passes through 270 degrees which is the contour 115 and 120
(Fig. 3)." Id. at 5.
Appellants dispute this finding and argue that "Figure 3 of Lindsay
merely discloses holes and contours and does not disclose lead in paths."
App. Br. 13. "As seen in Figure 6C, Lindsay, at most, discloses a lead in
6
Appeal2018-002573
Application 14/079,799
path of approximately 180 degrees, i.e., first zone 110 which is the path from
120 to 270." Id.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments because Figure 3 of
Lindsay merely illustrates a sample workpiece showing anticipated hole and
contour cut outlines. Lindsay ,r 73. And, as Appellants point out (Reply
Br. 8), the Examiner does not rebut or address Appellants' arguments but
merely asserts that Appellants' "arguments are not persuasive" and
replicates the rejection in the Response to Argument section of the Answer.
Ans. 12; cf Final Act. 4--5.
We find Figures 7 A-7C of Lindsay disclose three lead in paths
having three different shapes. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that the lead in paths shown in Figures 7 A-7C of Lindsay
do not pass through at least 270 degrees as called for by claim 6. Figure 7C
shows a lead in path that passes through approximately 180 degrees, which
is the largest of the three.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Lindsay, including dependent claim 26.
Independent claim 7
In rejecting claim 7, the Examiner finds Lindsay's disclosure of
Figures 7 A and 7B discussed above, "where different shapes having
different lead in cutting speeds (paragraph 0132, lines 11-15)" describes
cutting a first portion of a perimeter of a contour at a first feed rate and
cutting a second portion of the perimeter at a second feed rate that is less
than the first rate, from the transition point to the lead in point. Final Act. 5.
7
Appeal2018-002573
Application 14/079,799
Appellants argue that Lindsay does not disclose this feature of
claim 7. App. Br. 13.
To the extent Lindsay's system is comparable, Lindsay
discloses that the "third zone" 210 is the zone prior to reaching
the lead in point 270 during cutting. See, e.g., Lindsay at par.
117 and Figure 6C. Lindsay also discloses that in the third zone
the command speed is maintained or increased. See, e.g.,
Lindsay at par. 122 ("The method can include substantially
maintaining or further increasing the command speed in the
third zone during ramp down of the current (step 340).") Thus,
rather than decreasing the feed rate, Lindsay maintains or
increases the speed.
Id. at 14; Reply Br. 9.
Paragraph 132 of Lindsay describes cutting two or more hole features
in a workpiece using different cutting parameters. The relied-on portion in
Lindsay provides that "the second hole feature can be cut using a second
automated process by initiating the secondary gas flow having a second gas
composition and using a second set of cutting parameters." Lindsay ,r 132,
lines 11-14. It is unclear from the rejection how the Examiner's finding
about cutting two different contours at two different speeds anticipates
cutting a contour perimeter at a first feed rate, and cutting a second portion
of the perimeter at a second feed rate, which is less than said first rate, from
said transition point to said lead in point, as required by claim 7. Similarly
here, the Examiner has not addressed Appellants' argument, merely
asserting that Appellants' "arguments are not persuasive," which is followed
by the rejection of record without any further explanation. See Ans. 13;
cf Final Act. 5---6. In other words, the Examiner does not clarify in what
way "different shapes having different lead in cutting speeds" meets the
8
Appeal2018-002573
Application 14/079,799
claim limitation, and offers no reasoning to rebut Appellants' argument as to
Lindsay's disclosure of maintaining or increasing the command speed.
On the record before us, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Lindsay.
Obviousness
Dependent claims 10-13
Claims 10-13 depend from independent claim 4, and the Examiner's
reliance on Hussary and Fagan (Final Act. 9-11) does not cure the above
discussed deficiency as to claim 4. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejections of claims 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
9