Appeal No. 95-4369
Application 08/117,242
This teaching transcends the purported distinction based on what
the laser beam is being applied to do, e.g., high energy ablation
of materials or low energy application for Raman spectroscopy.
The appellants have not asserted, much less demonstrated, that
the state of the art was such that laser energy sufficient for
material ablation could not be channeled through an optical
fiber. In light of Bowen, it would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill in the art that remotely locating the laser is an
alternative to locating the laser at the site of ablation.
Remotely locating the laser is also not "against" the teaching of
Jowitt. The appellants have not pointed to anything in Jowitt
which would suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art that
the laser must be located at the site of material ablation.
The appellants further argue that Jowitt neither teaches or
suggests a "separate" aerosol transport system, "but teaches the
use of a byproduct aerosol resulting from the laser/metal
interaction" (Br. at 12, lines 3-16). The argument is not
commensurate in scope with the claimed invention and thus is
rejected. None of claims 45, 64 and 81 requires a "separate"
aerosol transport system which does not make use of a byproduct
aerosol resulting from material ablation.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007