Appeal No. 95-3366
Application No. 08/113,550
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new grounds of rejection:
(1) Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over European '550. The reference discloses at
column 4, first paragraph, the claim requirement for a continuous
series of pulses.
(2) Claims 16 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
European '550 in view of the admitted state of the prior art and
Japanese '280. Appellants' specification, at page 2, and
Japanese '280 at, for example, page 7 of the English translation,
evidence that accelerated cooling of the treated workpiece was
known in the art.
(3) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over European '550 in view of Giacobbe. As
explained above, we find that it would have been obvious for one
of ordinary skill in the art to employ the process of the
European reference to treat at least two workpieces rather than
just one. Also, Giacobbe discloses that only a very small number
of system modifications are required in order to facilitate the
heat treatment of a large number of specimens (column 2, lines 40
et seq.).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
rejection of claims 12, 13, 15, 28-31 and 33 over European '550
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007