Ex Parte Hutchison

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2018

13427507 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/427,507 03/22/2012
149749 7590 10/02/2018
ITW c/o MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard Martin Hutchison
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.
62290US02 (60525-US) 3768
EXAMINER
DUNNER, DIALLO IGWE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2018 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):
mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD MARTIN HUTCHISON
Appeal2017-000742
Application 13/427,507
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Richard Martin Hutchison ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 20, and 21.
Appeal Br. 2. Claims 10-19 have been withdrawn. See Final Act. 1 (Office
Action Summary). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Illinois Tool
Works Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-000742
Application 13/427,507
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosed invention "relates generally to the field of
welding systems, and particularly to pulsed gas metal arc welding systems
(GMAW-P), also known as pulsed metal inert gas (pulsed MIG) welding
systems." Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1 and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A welding system, comprising:
a welding torch;
a base unit configured to supply the welding torch with a
pulsed electrical current for producing a welding arc between
the welding torch and a work piece;
a voltage sensor;
a current sensor; and
control circuitry coupled to the voltage sensor and the
current sensor, wherein the control circuitry comprises a
processor configured to detect signals relating to the pulsed
electrical current via the voltage sensor and the current sensor,
to store in memory a pulsed waveform based on the signals as
an idealized pulsed waveform, to detect subsequent signals
relating to a subsequent pulsed electrical current supplied to the
welding torch, and to compare a subsequent pulsed waveform
based on the subsequent signals with the idealized pulsed
waveform.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Hsu
Blankenship
US 2003/0071024 Al
US 2005/0133488 Al
2
Apr. 17, 2003
June 23, 2005
Appeal2017-000742
Application 13/427,507
REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review: 2 Claims 1, 3-9, 20,
and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Blankenship and Hsu. Final Act. 4--9.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a welding system that
includes control circuitry with a processor that is configured to detect signals
relating to pulsed electrical current via a voltage sensor and a current sensor,
to "store in memory a pulsed waveform based on the signals as an idealized
pulsed waveform," to "detect subsequent signals relating to a subsequent
pulsed electrical current supplied to [a] welding torch," and to "compare a
subsequent pulsed waveform based on the subsequent signals with the
idealized pulsed waveform." Appeal Br., Claims App. ( emphasis added).
Independent claim 20 includes similar recitations, specifically including
control circuitry with a processor that is configured to "compare a second
pulsed power waveform based on [a] second set of signals with [ a stored]
first pulsed power waveform." Id. ( emphasis added).
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner relies on Blankenship for
disclosing many of the elements of a welding system, including control
circuitry with a processor that stores in memory a pulsed waveform and
detects subsequent pulsed waveform signals, but acknowledges that
2 We note that a rejection of claims 1, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Blankenship has been withdrawn by the Examiner
and thus is not before us for review as part of the instant appeal. Ans. 2; see
also Final Act. 2--4.
3
Appeal2017-000742
Application 13/427,507
Blankenship does not disclose the "comparing" operation of the claimed
processor. See Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner turns to Hsu for teaching a
welding system with a processor that compares heat data. See id. at 5---6
(citing Hsu ,r,r 30-31, 68---69, 72-75). Appellant persuasively explains,
however, that Hsu "fails to disclose a comparison of pulsed waveforms," as
required by the claims. Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis omitted); see id. at 12-13;
Reply Br. 2--4.
Initially, we are persuaded by Appellant's argument that Blankenship,
as relied on in the rejection, "fails to teach or suggest a 'pulsed waveform'
with a pulse period," as recited in the claims. Reply Br. 2; see id. at 2-3. In
this regard, we note that plots 90 and 92 in Blankenship's Figure 6, on which
the Examiner relies as depicting pulsed waveforms (Ans. 6), are described as
being plots of current and voltage, respectively, as functions of travel
position for each electrode (Blankenship ,r,r 20, 40). As Appellant explains,
however, this is different from a pulsed waveform, which would be a plot as
a function of time ( such a pulsed waveform necessarily having a temporal
pulse period). See Reply Br. 2-3 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 4, 15); see also Spec.
,r,r 30-33, 39--40. Accordingly, the Examiner's finding that Blankenship
discloses a processor that stores and detects subsequent "pulsed waveforms,"
as claimed, is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Moreover, even if it were known to use a processor to store and detect
subsequent pulsed waveforms, which the applied references do not show, we
agree with Appellant that Hsu, as relied on in the rejection, does not teach a
comparison of such pulsed waveforms, as required by the claims. See
Appeal Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 3--4. In particular, although we appreciate that
Hsu teaches some comparison, we agree with Appellant that such teaching
4
Appeal2017-000742
Application 13/427,507
pertains to a single calculated heat value being compared against another
single desired or setpoint heat value (see Reply Br. 3 ( citing Hsu ,r,r 68---69,
73-74); Appeal Br. 13), rather than to any comparison of "a pulsed
waveform with multiple values over a pulse period to another pulsed
waveform," as in the claims (Reply Br. 3; see id. at 3--4; Appeal Br. 12-13).
Accordingly, the Examiner's finding that Hsu teaches a comparison of
pulsed waveforms, as claimed, is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Rejections based on obviousness must rest on a factual basis, and the
Examiner making such a rejection has the initial burden of supplying that
requisite factual basis. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA
1967). Upon review of the record before us, we agree with Appellant that
neither Blankenship nor Hsu sufficiently discloses a comparison of pulsed
waveforms, as required by the claims. Thus, for the reasons presented by
Appellant regarding the distinctions as to any comparison made by a
processor, between that of Hsu and that claimed, we agree with Appellant.
Because the cited art does not teach this recited feature of the processor in
the claimed welding system, the requisite factual basis for the obviousness
rejection has not been sufficiently established.
Accordingly, as the Examiner's rejection is premised on findings that
are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we do not sustain it.
5
Appeal2017-000742
Application 13/427,507
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 20,
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blankenship
and Hsu.
REVERSED
6