Appeal No. 2005-2489
Application No. 09/949,736
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). This test requires us
to take into account not only the specific teachings of the prior
art references, but also any inferences which one skilled in the
art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by
claims 34 through 36, the examiner relies on the combined
teachings of Gartner and Somers. The examiner finds that Gartner
teaches the claimed subject matter, except for the shutter
recited in claim 34 and the end point detector recited in claims
35 and 36. To remedy these deficiencies in Gartner, the examiner
relies on the disclosure of Somers to show ”a shutter (column 4,
lines 16-49) for closing the optical opening during laser
operation and end point detection utilizing light frequency and
intensity reflection characteristics (column 2, lines 5[4]-65).”
See the final Office action, page 4.
Given that Gartner employs a laser through an optical
opening and teaches a need to control a laser intensity to
increase the absorptivity and the effectiveness of the laser
action (e.g., column 6, lines 3-25), we concur with the examiner
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
employ the shutter and the detector taught by Somers, motivated
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007