Appeal No. 2003-2136 Page 16
Application No. 09/562,952
front end of the center electrode 4 so as to provide a noble metal portion 6." Col. 3,
ll. 36-39. More specifically, the latter reference includes the following disclosure.
In this instance, the laser beam welding is carried out by using YAG
(yttrium, aluminum and garnet) laser beams (L) emitting forty-eight shots
at 11 mm underfocus (5 pps) with one shot energy and pulse duration as
7.5 Joules and 2.0 milliseconds, respectively, emitting forty-eight shots at
11 mm underfocus (5 pps) with one shot energy and pulse duration as
7.5 Joules and 2.0 millseconds, [sic] respectively, emitting thirty-six shots
at 2 mm center electrode diameter and just focus (12 pps) with one shot
energy and pulse duration as 5 to 6 Joules and 2.0 milliseconds
respectively, and emitting forty-eight shots at 2.5 mm center electrode
diameter and just focus (14 pps) with one shot energy and pulse duration
as 5.5 to 6.5 Joules and 2.0 milliseconds respectively.
Col. 3, l. 59 - col. 4, l. 4 (emphases added). In summary, Matsutani carries out its laser
welding in an energy range of 5 - 7.5 J. We are not persuaded that it would have been
desirable to have substituted the energy range used by the latter reference, which does
not involve an iridium-rhodium alloy, for the energy used by Oshima '198 when the
iridium-based alloy disclosed therein takes the form of an iridium-rhodium alloy, as
suggested by Osamura. The examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition
of Oshima '569 would have suggested the desirability. Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of claim 16.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 7-15 and 17 under § 103(a) is affirmed. The
rejection of claim 16 under § 103(a), however, is reversed. "Any arguments or
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007