Appeal 2007-2554
Application 10/667,515
use of a cooling device. Again, it must be emphasized that Appellants are
not claiming a method of cutting a non-metallic substrate, but, rather, an
apparatus for doing so which, we find, is not structurally distinct from the
apparatus of the admitted prior art.
Moreover, we fully concur with the Examiner that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to eliminate the cooling beam of
the admitted prior art along with the advantage that cooling affords.
Appellants do not separately argue the Examiner's § 103 rejections
over the admitted prior art in view of Kitajima and Boyle.
As a final point, with respect to the § 103 rejections, Appellants base
no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as
unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claim is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(iv)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED
cam
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013