Appeal No. 1999-1190
Application 08/481,367
wherein “type” was deleted from claim 7 and, in claim 10, “the
collection means” was changed to “the means provided for the
collection of laser ejected material”. The examiner stated
that the reply brief has been entered and considered (response
filed November 13, 1997, paper no. 19), but the examiner did
not mention the amendment. The examiner, however, penciled
“OK to enter” into the margin of the amendment, together with
her initials and the date, and the amendment has been entered.
Accordingly, we vacate the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
Rejection over JP ‘200
Each of the appellants’ independent claims recites that a
laser beam directed onto a metallic surface has sufficient
power density to melt at least a portion of the metallic
surface and to cause direct ejection of laser-generated melt
pool liquid from that surface.
JP ‘200 discloses a method for decontaminating a metallic
surface by directing a laser beam onto the surface, and
teaches that “[a] portion of the clad layer 19 which has
melted vaporizes and scatters, and the remaining portion is
blown off by the high-speed gas stream from the gas jet pipe
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007