Appeal No. 95-4369 Application 08/117,242 This teaching transcends the purported distinction based on what the laser beam is being applied to do, e.g., high energy ablation of materials or low energy application for Raman spectroscopy. The appellants have not asserted, much less demonstrated, that the state of the art was such that laser energy sufficient for material ablation could not be channeled through an optical fiber. In light of Bowen, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art that remotely locating the laser is an alternative to locating the laser at the site of ablation. Remotely locating the laser is also not "against" the teaching of Jowitt. The appellants have not pointed to anything in Jowitt which would suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art that the laser must be located at the site of material ablation. The appellants further argue that Jowitt neither teaches or suggests a "separate" aerosol transport system, "but teaches the use of a byproduct aerosol resulting from the laser/metal interaction" (Br. at 12, lines 3-16). The argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention and thus is rejected. None of claims 45, 64 and 81 requires a "separate" aerosol transport system which does not make use of a byproduct aerosol resulting from material ablation. 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007