Ex Parte Stanzel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2012

11348168 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/348,168 02/06/2006 Kenneth A. Stanzel 15522/YOD (ITWO:0111) 5031
7590 06/28/2012
Patrick S. Yoder
FLETCHER YODER
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
MAYE, AYUB A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte KENNETH A. STANZEL, BERNARD J. VOGEL,
CHRIS ROEHL and KELLEY MORROW
________________

Appeal 2010-004751
Application 11/348,168
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN and,
MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004751
Application 11/348,168

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1-25 and 28-321. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

The Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter is directed to a welding system having
first and second input devices and a control circuit. Independent claims 1
and 12 are illustrative of the claims on appeal and are reproduced below:
1. A welding system, comprising:
a power source configured to output power within a range of
power levels;
a first input device operable to select an output power level
provided by the power source;
an advancement mechanism configured to advance wire
electrode into a welding torch of the welding system at a rate of
advancement;
a control circuit configured to determine the rate of
advancement based on the output power level selected via the first
input device; and
a second input device operable to manually select the rate of
advancement and to at least partially disable the control circuit.

12. A welding system, comprising:
a power source configured to output power within a range of
power levels;
an advancement mechanism configured to advance wire
electrode into a welding torch of the welding system at a rate of
advancement;
a first input device operable to select the rate of advancement;

1 While both the Examiner and Appellants state that the rejection of claims
1-32 is appealed, claims 26 and 27 are not subject to either ground of
rejection and therefore are not before us on review (Ans. 3-10; Office Action
dated Nov. 17, 2008, pp. 2-9; App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2010-004751
Application 11/348,168

3
a control circuit configured to determine an output level of the
power source based on the selected rate of advancement; and
a second input device operable to manually select the output
power level and to at least partially disable the control circuit.

References Relied on by the Examiner
Manz US 3,125,671 Mar. 17, 1964
Cox US 4,608,482 Aug. 26, 1986

The Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 13, 17, 22 and 23 are rejected as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Manz (Ans. 3).
2. Claims 3, 5, 11, 14-16, 18-21, 24-25 and 28-32 are rejected as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Manz and Cox (Ans. 6).

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 13, 17, 22 and 23
as being anticipated by Manz
Independent claim 1 requires a “control circuit” that determines wire
advancement rate based on selected output power level. The Examiner finds
that Manz’s items 22 and P-2 shown in Figure 3 disclose such a control
circuit (Ans. 3). Appellants contend that “Manz relies solely on
manual/mechanical operation and thus cannot possibly make” the required
determination (App. Br. 10). We disagree with Appellants. First, the
Specification does not expressly define this term and as broadly construed
“control circuit” would include manual/mechanical components for
operation (Ans. 3). Second, Manz discloses linkage means 22 that “change
the setting on potentiometer P-2” (i.e. determines wire advancement rate)
Appeal 2010-004751
Application 11/348,168

4
based on power output (Manz 4:35-53 and Fig. 3). Accordingly, Appellants’
contention is not persuasive.
Regarding the claimed “second input device”, the Examiner correlates
this to Manz’s items 17 and P-1 (Ans. 3, see also 11). Appellants contend
that “the Examiner cites two Manz devices to enable manual rate selection
and at least partially disable the control circuit – not a single input device”
(App. Br. 11, see also Reply Br. 2-3). Appellants’ contention is not
persuasive as the claim limitation does not require the input device to be a
single device2. In view of the record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-10.
Independent claim 12 differs from claim 1 in that the “control circuit”
of claim 12 determines output power level “based on the selected rate of
advancement.” The Examiner relies on Manz’s items P and R-1, shown in
Figure 2, stating that the “rate of advancement comes from the output
voltage and current power” (Ans. 11). This is opposite the limitation of
claim 12 which requires a determination of output power level based on rate
of advancement. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by the Examiner’s
findings that Manz teaches each and every element recited and as such, we
reverse the rejection of claims 12, 13 and 17.
Independent claim 22 is written in the alternative and requires a
“control circuit” that determines rate of advancement based on a range of
output power levels OR determines an output power level based on rates of

2 Additionally, we note that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined in a
case involving a fire grate that the claims were anticipated “because it
involves no invention to cast in one piece an article which has formerly been
cast in two pieces, and put together” (Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150
U.S. 164, 170 (1893)).
Appeal 2010-004751
Application 11/348,168

5
advancement. Appellants repeat the manual/mechanical operation argument
of Manz’s components and we do not find this contention persuasive for
reasons similar to those discussed with regard to independent claim 1 supra.
(App. Br. 16-17). Appellants further contend that Manz’s “voltage is not
controlled based on a rate of advancement, nor does Manz provide a single
voltage level based on a range of rates of advancement” (App. Br. 16). We
do not find this contention persuasive as claim 22 is written in the alternative
and we have already acknowledged that Manz discloses the alternative of
determining rate of advancement based on output power level (Manz 4:35-
53 and Fig. 3). We are also not persuaded that the Examiner’s reliance on
Manz’s items P and R-1 in Figure 2 as disclosing advancement based on
different power parameters (i.e. “range”) is in error (Ans. 12, see also Manz
3:53-59).
Claim 22 further requires that the first OR second input devices “at
least partially disable the control circuit.” The Examiner identifies Manz’s
items 17 and P-1 as correlating to the claimed second input device (Ans. 5).
The Examiner specifically identifies switch 17 as at least partially disabling
the control circuit and the Examiner identifies potentiometer P-1 as
providing for manual adjustment (Ans. 5, 13). Appellants contend that
“item 17 is neither the first input device nor the second input device” and
further that “switch 17 itself does not make any adjustments” and that
potentiometer P-1 does not “disable any sort of control circuit” (App. Br. 17-
18). Appellants’ arguments that switch 17 is not part of the Examiner’s
identified second input device and further that components 17 and P-1 do
not perform the task of the other are not persuasive. Appellants also contend
that Manz “discloses a plurality of elements” (i.e. 17 and P-1) and “does not
Appeal 2010-004751
Application 11/348,168

6
teach a single input device” which, as previously discussed, is also not
persuasive (Reply Br. 6). We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22
and 23.

The rejection of claims 3, 5, 11, 14-16, 18-21, 24-25 and 28-32
as being unpatentable over Manz and Cox
The Examiner relies on the patent to Cox for its various teachings and
states that it would have been obvious to modify the welding system of
Manz with Cox’s control circuit “because the control circuit would provide
very reliable control with operation and dependable data and information
from the memory device” (Ans. 6-7, see also 13). Appellants contend that
“the Examiner combined the cited references based on the conclusory and
subjective statement” above (App. Br. 23-24). We disagree with Appellants
as Cox clearly teaches a controller microprocessor that provides “precise and
reliable control of the electrode speed and the welding voltage” and further
that this microprocessor contains a memory storing “power/speed tables
used during a welding operation” (Cox 2:6-10, 8:35-37). Accordingly, we
are of the opinion that the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants also contend that Manz and Cox cannot be combined as
they have different purposes and principles of operation (App. Br. 24).
More specifically, Appellants contend that Manz relies on mechanical
linkages to “tie power and wire feed adjustments together” while Cox
teaches “adjustments ‘in accordance with a selected power/speed
relationship table or curve’” (App. Br. 24). The Examiner disagrees stating
that “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references” (Ans. 13).
Appeal 2010-004751
Application 11/348,168

7
We agree with the Examiner and further point out that an electrical control is
a known alternative to a mechanical control (as indicated by the patents to
Cox and Manz). We further note that one skilled in the art is not an
automaton and that a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings
of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. Appellants do not show
how the proposed modification is beyond this skill level or how such a
modification would render Manz unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Specifically with respect to claims 3, 5, 11, 28 and 29, Appellants
contend that “Cox fails to obviate the deficiencies of Manz” yet we find no
deficiencies that need obviating (App. Br. 25). Regarding claim 5,
Appellants contend that the cited references fail to teach or suggest a control
circuit “assembled in a single housing” and address the alleged deficiencies
of Cox (App. Br. 25). The Examiner states that “one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually” and further identifies
Cox column 2, lines 55-65 for disclosing a control circuit associated with
Cox’s welding gun (Ans. 13-14). In view of the above, Appellants have not
persuaded us that the Examiner’s finding is in error. We sustain the
rejection of claims 3, 5, 11, 28 and 29.
Regarding claims 14-16, 30 and 31, these claims depend directly or
indirectly from independent claim 12. The Examiner’s reference to Cox
does not obviate the deficiencies of Manz noted supra and accordingly, we
reverse the rejection of these claims.
Regarding independent claim 18, Appellants repeat the contention that
Manz discloses two components (17 and P-1) and “not a single device”
(App. Br. 26, Reply Br. 8). Appellants also extend this argument to Cox
which is not persuasive (Reply Br. 8). Appellants also repeat the contention
Appeal 2010-004751
Application 11/348,168

8
that “Manz teaches a mechanical linkage” and not a control circuit (App. Br.
26). Neither contention is deemed persuasive for reasons similar to those
discussed supra. We sustain the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claims 19-21, 24, 25 and 32, Appellants do not present
separate arguments addressing their recited claim limitations but instead rely
on their dependence from claims 18 and 22 whose rejections were sustained
supra. We sustain the rejections of claims 19-21, 24, 25 and 32.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-11, 18-25, 28, 29 and 32 is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 12-17, 30 and 31 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

MP