Appeal No. 2001-1465 Page 6
Application No. 09/048,522
provide an imaging subassembly and control system for monitoring and controlling the
relationship between the location of the cutting jet 31 of Spivy and a predetermined
cutting location as recited in claim 1. From our perspective, the only suggestion for
putting the selected pieces from the references together in the manner proposed by the
examiner is found in the luxury of hindsight accorded one who first viewed the
appellants' disclosure. The examiner’s rejections of claim 1, as well as claims 2 and 7
which depend from claim 1, as being unpatentable over Spivy in view of Noé or Spivy in
view of Noé and Lundgren are thus improper and cannot be sustained. In light of our
discussion supra, it also follows that the examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 6 and 11,
which also depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, as being unpatentable over Spivy
in view of Noé and Lundgren cannot be sustained.
The above-noted deficiency of the combination of Spivy, Noé and Lundgren finds
no cure in the teachings of the additional references relied upon in rejecting the
remaining dependent claims on appeal. Thus, the rejections of claims 5 and 12 as
being unpatentable over Spivy in view of Noé, Lundgren and Lüber, claims 8 and 9 as
being unpatentable over Spivy in view of Noé, Lundgren and Taguchi and claim 10 as
being unpatentable over Spivy in view of Noé, Lundgren and Aihara are also not
sustained.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007