Appeal No. 1997-2075 Page 14
Application No. 08/362,362
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
In accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 11 to 15 and
20 fall with claim 10. Thus, it follows that the decision of
the examiner to reject claims 11 to 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is also affirmed.
Claims 16 to 19
In accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we have selected
claim 16 as the representative claim from the appellant's
grouping of claims 16 to 19 to decide the appeal on this
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See page 8 of the
appellant's brief.
With respect to dependent claim 16, the examiner further
determined (final rejection, p. 4) that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to extend the
beam spots beyond the edge of the part to ensure complete
coverage of the part, as a matter of simple geometry.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007