Lincoln Global, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 6, 2021

2020002412 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 2021)

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.
15/696,423 09/06/2017 Todd E. Kooken 2017-045-US-NP 6533
141825 7590 07/06/2021
The Lincoln Electric Company
22801 Saint Clair Avenue
Legal Department
Cleveland, OH 44117
EXAMINER
KABIR, SAAD M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2119
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2021 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):
desiree_cunin@lincolnelectric.com
ginger_mcghee@lincolnelectric.com
ip@lincolnelectric.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TODD E. KOOKEN,
JOSEPH A. DANIEL, MATTHEW A. ALBRIGHT,
BRUCE JOHN CHANTRY, and STEVEN R. PETERS

Appeal 2020-002412
Application 15/696,423
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, ERIC B. CHEN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject the claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lincoln
Global, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002412
Application 15/696,423

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner rejected claim 1–20 in the Final Office Action under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Albrecht et al. (US 2007/0080153 A1,
published Apr. 12, 2007) (“Albrecht”) and Barhorst et al. (US 2017/0165779
A1, published June 15, 2017) (“Barhorst”). Final Act. 5.
There are three independent claims on appeal, claims 1, 10, and 19.
Each of the three claims requires the same limitation of identifying a match
indicating “that the power source is actively using the consumable source of
wire during an operation within the factory environment” and similar criteria
to make the determination. We select claim 1 as representative and
reproduce it below (bracketed numbering added to reference the claim
limitations):
1. A method of relating wire to a power source in a
factory environment, the method comprising:
[1] receiving first time stamped data associated with a
consumable source of wire within a factory environment at one
or more server computers in a networked system, wherein the
first time stamped data indicates:
[1a] at least one of an identity or a location of the
consumable source of wire within the factory environment, and
[1b] a weight status, stamped with a first time,
indicating a change in weight of the consumable source of wire
within the factory environment;
[2] receiving second time stamped data associated with a
power source within the factory environment at the one or more
server computers in the networked system,
wherein the second time stamped data indicates:
[2a] at least one of an identity or a location of the
power source within the factory environment, and
[2b] an activation status, stamped with a second
time, indicating an activation of the power source within the
factory environment; and
Appeal 2020-002412
Application 15/696,423

3
[3] the one or more server computers in the networked
system matching the power source to the consumable source of
wire based on at least
[3a] the first time stamped data,
[3b] the first time,
[3c] the second time stamped data, and
[3d] the second time,
wherein the matching indicates that the power
source is actively using the consumable source of wire during
an operation within the factory environment.

CLAIM 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of “relating wire to a power source in
a factory environment.” As explained in the Specification, and reflected in
the claim, the claimed method “correlate[s] or match[es] a welding power
source to a consumable source of welding wire based on the first data and
the second data.” Spec. ¶ 26. The Specification further explains:
Such matching indicates that a particular welding power source
is actively using a particular consumable source of welding wire
during a welding operation within the welding environment. That
is, the matching indicates from which particular consumable
source of welding wire in the welding environment a particular
welding power source is drawing wire (e.g., via a wire feeder).
Spec. ¶ 26.
The advantage, as disclosed in the Specification, is that “[n]o
intervention is used to make any matches, associations, or correlations.”
Spec. ¶ 27.
Claimed steps [1] and [2] comprise receiving first and second data,
respectively, “at one or more server computers in a networked system.” The
networked system can be “a local area network (LAN), a wide area network
(WAN), or a cloud-based network.” See dependent claim 3.
Appeal 2020-002412
Application 15/696,423

4
In the first step [1] of claim 1, “first time stamped data” for a
“consumable source of wire” is received by the server. The time stamped
data indicates [1a] location or identity of the wire in the factory, and [1b]
weight status, stamped with a first time, indicating a change in weight of the
wire. The wire is thus in use and the network is monitoring its use by using
weight status to monitor the wire’s consumption during the welding process.
We interpret the “first time” to be the time when the weight status changes
for the first time, indicating it is actively being used. See Spec. ¶ 36.
In the second step [2] of the claim, “second time stamped data” for a
“power source” is received by the server. The time stamped data indicates
[2a] location or identity of the power source in the factory, and [2b] an
activation status, stamped with a second time, indicating an activation of the
power source. We interpret the “second time” to the time when the power
source is activated for the first time. Spec. ¶ 28.
The last step [3] of the claim results in the server computer “matching
the power source to the consumable source of wire” and indicates that “the
power source is actively using the consumable source of wire during an
operation within the factory environment.” Thus, the method determines that
the power source is using a wire source.
The “matching” in claim 1 is “based on at least” four sources of data:
[3a] the first time stamped data, which is the location or identity
of the wire;
[3b] the first time, which indicates the first time the wire is
consumed;
[3c] the second time stamped data, which is the location or
identity of the power source; and
Appeal 2020-002412
Application 15/696,423

5
[3d] the second time, which indicates the first time the power
source is activated.
Thus, the claim requires the server computer to use the four data
sources to determine when the power source is using a wire source.

DISCUSSION
The Examiner rejected the claims based on Albrecht and Barhorst.
Albrecht relates “to welding-type devices, and more specifically, to an
apparatus and system for wirelessly identifying, locating, and/or monitoring
the status of remote welding-type devices located at a job site or in storage.”
Albrecht ¶ 2. The devices described in Albrecht include consumable welding
wire and power sources (Albrecht ¶ 32), the same devices recited in claim 1.
The Examiner found that Albrecht describes all three steps of claim 1,
but not “[1b] a weight status, stamped with a first time, indicating a change
in weight of the consumable source of wire within the factory environment.”
Final Act. 5–6. For this limitation, the Examiner turned to Barhorst, which
the Examiner found describes determining the weight status of wire during
consumption. Id. at 6. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to
determine weight status of the wire in Albrecht’s method to know how much
wire is being consumed. Id. at 7.
Appellant makes two principal arguments. First, Appellant argues that
Albrecht does not disclose time stamped data. Appeal Br. 19–20. Second,
Appellant argues that Albrecht, alone, or in combination with Barhorst, does
not describe step [3] of claim 1, in which the specific data of steps [3a]–[3d]
is used to match the power source and consumable wire to determine that
“the power source is actively using the consumable source of wire during an
Appeal 2020-002412
Application 15/696,423

6
operation within the factory environment.” Appeal Br. 19 (emphasis
omitted).
With respect to the requirement of claim 1 for time stamped data, the
Examiner cited paragraph 40 of Albrecht which discloses:
Processing unit 32 could record summaries of the time or
operating conditions under which errors occur onto data storage
unit 26, and/or prepare real-time component error messages as
soon as errors occur.
Appellant contends that recording the time when an error occurs does
not have “anything to do with the time stamped weight status, energization
status, or activation status of the independent claims of the present
application.” Appeal Br. 19.
This argument does not persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding
that Albrecht in combination with Barhorst suggests time stamped data. The
rejection is based on obviousness, not anticipation. An obviousness “analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim,” instead we “can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). An explicit suggestion to
modify the prior art is unnecessary to establish obviousness. Id. at 415. “A
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” Id. at 421.
Albrecht’s teaching of “summaries of the time” to keep track of when
errors occur reasonably suggests that time must be tracked during the
welding process in order to know at what time an error occurred in the use of
the power source and consumable welding wire. If the time were not being
tracked, then it could not be determined when an error occurred. Thus, it
Appeal 2020-002412
Application 15/696,423

7
would have been obvious to provide time stamps for both the power source
and consumable wire source to determine and track time in order to record
the time at which an error occurred. Stamping the time at which the power
source is activated, as in step [2b], would have been obvious for the same
reason, namely, stamping the time at which the power source is activated as
the initial time and then tracking the time from this point until an error
occurs.
Barhorst provides express reason to stamp the time when the
consumable welding wire is in use. Barhorst teaches:
Note that in some embodiments, the sensor 72 may be used to
detect the weight of welding wire 42 on the spool 40 at the time
the spool 40 is loaded into the wire feeder 12, or upon startup of
the wire feeder 12. The amount of wire 42 left on the spool 40
may then be derived by determining the amount of wire 42 used
in the time since the spool 40 was loaded, and then debiting that
amount from the amount of wire 42 on the spool 40 when the
spool 40 was loaded.
Barhorst ¶ 38.
This disclosure by Barhorst, as found by the Examiner (Final Act. 6–
7), discloses “[1b] a weight status, stamped with a first time, indicating a
change in weight of the consumable source of wire within the factory
environment.” Appellant did not identify a deficiency in the Examiner’s
finding.
We next turn to step [3] of the claim. We agree with Appellant that
the disputed limitation is not described or suggested by the combination of
Albrecht and Barhorst.
Albrecht discloses determining the location and identity of the
different components which are needed “when preparing to perform a
welding-type process.” Albrecht ¶ 50. Albrecht explains that “[w]hen a user
Appeal 2020-002412
Application 15/696,423

8
desires to find components which are needed to operate a welding-type
apparatus, the user could use a monitoring device 48 to send a system-type
identification request.” Id. This disclosure cited by the Examiner (Final
Act. 5–6) thus relates to setting up and matching components for a future use
of a power source and consumable wire, but not when “the power source is
actively using the consumable source of wire during an operation within the
factory environment” as claim 1 requires.
The Examiner also cited Albrecht at ¶¶ 55, 57, and 71 to meet step [3]
of the claim. Final Act. 6; Ans. 6–8.
Paragraph 55 of Albrecht has the same type of disclosure as
paragraph 50 of matching power and consumable wire sources prior to their
use. Paragraph 57, similarly, refers to “inventory monitoring,” and not
monitoring when the power source and welding wire are in active use:
“Consumable sensor 112 and end of wire sensor 114 are used to provide
more accurate and precise inventory monitoring.” Albrecht ¶ 57.
Paragraph 56 of Albrecht, however, describes active monitoring:
Device-type sensor 110 can be used to detect which type
of equipment the consumable container is connected to, and can
be used to inform attached equipment of the type of consumable
contained therein. Thus, consumable container 84 may provide
information for use in active monitoring of the compatibility of
welding-type devices.
Albrecht ¶ 56.
Albrecht explains that this active monitoring is accomplished using
RFID tags or other wireless communication:
For example, when wire reel 84 is attached to a welding system
(not shown), device type sensor 110 detects which type of system
the reel 84 it is connected to via bar code reading, RFID
communication, or by conventional wire/data connection. The
Appeal 2020-002412
Application 15/696,423

9
device type information may be encoded in a transmission of
wireless communication unit 90 and sent to a monitoring device
(not shown). If the consumable type of the wire reel 84 and the
particular welding system type are incompatible or at least not
intended to be connected for the production process of that
location, one or more monitoring devices may issue a warning
signal in response, causing activation of user alert 116 or
disabling of the welding system.
Albrecht ¶ 56.
The determination made by Albrecht is of computability of devices
and accomplished by detecting the “identity” of the devices (“device type
information may be encoded in a transmission of wireless communication
unit 90 and sent to a monitoring device”). Id. There is no mention or
suggestion in Albrecht ¶ 56 of using: [3a] the consumable wire weight status
of the first time stamp data, [3b] the first time of a change in weight status,
[3c] the activation status of the second time stamp data, and [3d] the second
time of indicating the activation of the power source to determine that “the
power source is actively using the consumable source of wire during an
operation within the factory environment,” as required by the claim.
Albrecht does not describe how the system recognizes that a power source is
actively using a wire source; the only determination disclosed by Albrecht is
of compatibility when the two are connected.
The Examiner further cited paragraph 71 of Albrecht, but this
disclosure describes only monitoring of devices for compatibility. Albrecht
discloses that such monitoring detects “signals from these devices include
both location information and characteristic or type information.” Albrecht
¶ 71. The claim, however, requires data in addition to device location and
identity. As discussed above, this disclosure does not suggest step [3] of the
Appeal 2020-002412
Application 15/696,423

10
claim, in which matching is determined using the four recited data sources to
determine when a power source is actively using a consumable wire source.
Albrecht also performs an “interoperability determination” when “a
device is brought within a set distance of another device.” Albrecht ¶ 73. But
this is for a future use of the devices, not active use as required by the claim.
Barhorst was not found by the Examiner as meeting the deficiencies
described here for Albrecht.
For the foregoing reasons, the obviousness rejection of claim 1 is
reversed. Independent claims 10 and 19 have substantially the same
limitations and are reversed for the same reasons, as are dependent claims 2–
9, 11–18, and 20.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Albrecht, Barhorst 1–20

REVERSED