Appeal 2007-2554
Application 10/667,515
(c) claim 10 over the admitted prior art in view of Kitajima, and
(d) claim 12 over the admitted prior art in view of Boyle.
Appellants do not present an argument that is reasonably specific to
any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, the groups of claims separately
rejected by the Examiner stand or fall together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we find that the Examiner's rejections are well-
founded and supported by the prior art evidence relied upon. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth in the
Answer, and we add the following emphasis only.
We consider first the Examiner's § 102 rejection of claim 8 over Chui.
Thus thrust of the Examiner's rejection is that claim 8 defines an apparatus,
not a method of using the apparatus, and there is no structural distinction
between the apparatus within the scope of claim 8 and that fairly described
by Chui. We agree. Claim 8 defines a structure comprising a first laser
beam generating means and a second laser beam generating means for
cutting a non-metallic substrate. The claim recitations (for breaking
molecular bonds of the non-metallic substrate …" and "for propagating the
crack along the scanning path of the first laser beam …" are statements of
intended use that do not further limit the structures of the first and second
laser beam generating means. While the first and second laser beam
generating means of Chui are not taught to be used in the same manner as
Appellants use the claimed apparatus, it is reasonable to conclude that the
apparatus of Chui is fully capable of performing the claimed intended uses
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013