Ex Parte Salsich et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2017

12403217 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/403,217 03/12/2009 Anthony V. Salsich 21925/YOD (ITWO:0265) 9244
52145 7590 07/13/2017
FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
DUNIVER, DIALLO IGWE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2017 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
sinclair@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY V. SALSICH and ALAN A. MANTHE
Appeal 2015-004517
Application 12/403,217
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-004517
Application 12/403,217
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Appellants state that this Appeal “relates generally to the field of
metal cutting systems, such as a plasma arc cutter that forms a first plasma
arc between an electrode and a tip, then transfers the arc to form a second
plasma arc between the electrode and a work lead.” Appeal Br. 2 (citing
Spec. 12). Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A plasma cutting system, comprising:
a current source that in operation provides a
programmable current output;
a current regulator comprising a switch and being
configured to receive the programmable current output from the
current source;
a pilot arc circuit current path that in operation is
established between the current source, the current regulator, an
electrode, and a tip to establish a pilot arc between the electrode
and the tip when the pilot arc circuit current path is active;
a cutting arc circuit current path that in operation is
established between the current source, a workpiece, and the
electrode to establish a cutting arc between the workpiece and
the electrode when the cutting arc circuit current path is active;
a pilot control that in operation limits a current amplitude
level through the pilot arc circuit current path from the current
source to the tip by cycling the switch between an enable state
and a disable state to maintain the pilot arc between the
electrode and the tip; and
a power control that in operation, once the pilot arc is
established between the electrode and the workpiece, increases
a set point of the programmable current output and, as the set
point is increased, determines, without detecting current to the
workpiece via a current sensor, when a transfer of the pilot arc
to the workpiece to establish the cutting arc has occurred by
detecting when the switch in the current regulator ceases
cycling and remains in the enable state.
2
Appeal 2015-004517
Application 12/403,217
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5—8, 13, 14, and 16—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US 2007/0045241 Al;
Mar. 1, 2007) (“Schneider ’241”) and Schneider et al. (US. 6,194,682 Bl;
Feb. 27, 2001) (“Schneider ’682”).
Claims 3, 4, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schneider ’241, Schneider ’682, and Manthe (US
2004/0095788 Al; May 20, 2004).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schneider ’241, Schneider ’682, and Borowy et al. (US
5,620,617; Apr. 15, 1997) (“Borowy”).
Claims 11, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schneider ’241, Schneider ’682, and Norris et al. (US
2003/0164359 Al; Sept. 4, 2003) (“Norris”).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Schneider ’241 teaches most of the
limitations of claim 1, including the recited pilot control that “limits a
current amplitude level through the pilot arc current path ... by cycling [the]
switch . . . between an enable state and a disable state to maintain the pilot
arc.” Final Act. 2—3. Appellants argue Schneider ’241 describes activation
of a switch only to complete a circuit and generate a pilot arc, not to limit a
current amplitude level and maintain the pilot arc, as claimed. Appeal Br.
8—12. The Examiner responds that Schneider ’241 teaches that, after
forming the pilot arc, gas flow carries the pilot arc through an arc passage
such that the pilot arc is “maintained” until formation of a cutting arc (Ans.
3
Appeal 2015-004517
Application 12/403,217
6—7), and that opening and closing the circuit constitutes limiting the current
amplitude level (Ans. 7—8). Accord Final Act. 2—3 (citing Schneider ’241 ||
24—32), 18.
We agree with Appellants. Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, the
switch of Schneider ’241 activates only to momentarily close and then open
a pilot arc circuit during generation of a pilot arc, not to limit a current
amplitude level and maintain the pilot arc. See Schneider ’241, Figs. 3, 4,
115, 32, 38, 40. Schneider ’241 states, for example, its switching element
“remains in [an open position] during idle and cutting operation of plasma
torch assembly 180 and is momentarily located in [a closed position] only
when initiation of a pilot arc is desired.” Schneider ’241138 (emphasis
omitted); accord Schneider ’241 132 (“during idle and cutting operation of
plasma torch 18, shuttle element 64 is biased out of contact with nozzle 62
thereby forming an ‘open’ circuit condition [in the pilot arc circuit 52]”
(emphasis omitted)).
Without fully interpreting the “pilot control” limitation of claim 1, we
note that Appellants’ Specification describes a current regulator in a pilot arc
circuit that cycles a switch on to energize the circuit to a minimum level
necessary to maintain the pilot arc and, if the current level exceeds a
maximum level, cycles off to allow the current to decay back to the
minimum level, at which point the switch cycles back to the on state. See
Spec. 1119 (describing a chopper switch that toggles between “on” and
“off’ states to provide current levels within a programmable range to
maintain the pilot arc), 22 (same). Reading the plain language of claim 1 in
light of Appellants’ Specification, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner erred in finding that Schneider ’241’s disclosures of a switch that
4
Appeal 2015-004517
Application 12/403,217
turns on and then off to complete a pilot arc circuit for the formation of a
pilot arc teach or suggest the pilot control as claimed.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in the
rejections of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2—6, which depend
from claim 1. For the same reasons, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner erred in the rejection of independent claims 7 and 14 and
dependent claims 8—13 and 15—20, each of which includes limitations
substantially similar to those discussed above regarding claim 1. Having
considered the Examiner’s rejections in light of each of Appellants’
arguments and the evidence of record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1—20.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-20.
REVERSED
5