Appeal No. 2000-0477
Application No. 08/834,410
In light of the foregoing, the examiner’s Section 112,
second paragraph, rejection of claims 7 and 8 cannot be
sustained.
As for the Section 102 rejection, it is the examiner’s
position that Masters discloses each of the features recited in
rejected claims 6-8. In this regard, the examiner points out,
for example, that patentee teaches providing particles in the
form of a slurry, using inkjet printing technology to deliver
particles to a desired point, and fusing particles with a laser.
The examiner then argues that the here claimed evaporating and
sintering steps would be inherently practiced when using a laser
to fuse particles delivered in the form of a slurry via an ink
jet printer.
Even assuming Masters discloses each of the features
referred to by the examiner, it is clear that the examiner’s
finding of anticipation is improper. We here emphasize that, for
a Section 102 rejection to be proper, the applied reference must
clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed invention or
direct those skilled in the art to the invention without any need
for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not
directly related to each other by the teachings of the reference.
In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587-88, 172 USPQ 524, 526
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007