Appeal No. 2003-1275 Page 5
Application No. 09/443,456
and impressing (specification, page 1, lines 13-15). Moreover, the cuts made by the
laser head 13 certainly contribute to or facilitate the forming processes performed by
the progressive die of the press machine 1. Thus, in any event, we, like the examiner,
consider the laser processing machine 3 and press machine 1 together to comprise a
“forming system.” Consequently, the laser head 13 is “within” the forming system as
called for in claim 1. This being the case, we find appellants’ argument unpersuasive
and therefore sustain the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Hashimoto. In
that appellants’ brief presents no arguments as to the patentability of the additional
claims so rejected, claims 2-8, 10, 17, 18, 23, 25 and 27-30 fall with claim 1 (see In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582
F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978)). The rejection of these claims as
being anticipated by Hashimoto is thus also sustained.
We turn our attention next to the rejection of claims 24 and 26 as being
unpatentable over Hashimoto. Claim 24 requires the at least one machining device to
be arranged between two forming stations and claim 26 recites two or more machining
stations arranged parallel to one another and operatively connected behind or in front of
a common forming station. Hashimoto discloses neither arrangement and the
examiner’s dismissal of these limitations as being mere obvious design choice (Paper
No. 19, pages 4-5) is improper. Even when obviousness is based on a single prior art
reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007