Appeal No. 1998-3061
Application No. 08/638,903
pertinence to the use of a laser for a cutting function.
Therefore, the skilled artisan would never have been expected
to look to Chien for suggestions on how to improve and/or
modify the alignment device of Brock.
Moreover, even if we assume, arguendo, that the
references could be combined, we fail to see how one would
have arrived at the claimed subject matter. Even if one would
have taken the suggestion of Chien to use a laser in Brock’s
system, where is the suggestion as to how to modify Brock in
any manner so as to employ the laser? The combined references
would not have suggested somehow replacing the sighting system
of Brock with a laser and then emitting the light beam at a
preselected angle relative to the cutting means.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13 under
35 U.S.C. 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007