Appeal No. 1997-2075 Page 7
Application No. 08/362,362
it was known in the art to perform similar laser beam
treatment on large surfaces of parts by continuously
moving the part while firing the laser beam, where the
part is moved and the beam fired to produce more than one
row of overlapping linearly aligned offset beam spots
and thus falls at least into the latter category of the
Wood test, and logically would have commended itself to an
artisan's attention in considering the appellant's problem.
Thus, we conclude that Duley is analogous art.
Second, the appellant argues (brief, pp. 8-13) that
(1) there is no motivation to combine Vaccari and Duley, (2)
the examiner has used impermissible hindsight to combine
Vaccari and Duley, and (3) Vaccari and Duley teach away from
each other. We do not agree.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a case of obviousness.
See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993). A case of obviousness is established by
presenting evidence that the reference teachings would appear
to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art
having the references before him to make the proposed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007