Appeal No. 2005-1031
Application No. 09/998,073
to converge the beam in Elliott is adjustable. Nevertheless, Elliott does not disclose that the
optical component is adjusted such that upon operation of the electromagnetic radiation source a
beam produced thereby converges at a location in close proximity to, but not on, the workpiece
surface. Therefore, Elliott does not describe the invention of claim 64, and the rejection of claim
64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Elliott is reversed. See Verdegaal Bros.,
Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference.").
The patentability of claims 65-69 stands or falls with the patentability of claim 64.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 65-69 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Elliott
is also reversed.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 46-58 and 60-63 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Elliott is affirmed. The rejection of claims 64-69 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Elliott is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007