Appeal No. 2005-2687
Application 10/322,194
pieces of the references and how the slag of the claimed
invention semi-adheres to the cut metal piece. Significantly,
the Sykes declaration states that the slag of the references is
not sufficiently oxidized “to make it semi-adhering, thus
requiring the user to grind substantial amounts” (page 3 of
declaration, first full sentence.) However, appellant’s own
specification at page 37, discloses that the semi-adhering
“slag may be removed with a grinder and other methods known in
the art” (second paragraph). Hence, although there maybe a
distinction in appellant’s method and apparatus for forming a
cut metal piece, appellant has not demonstrated that cut metal
pieces within the scope of the appealed claims are patentably
distinct from the cut metal pieces of the prior art.
We will also sustain the examiner’s Section 103 rejection
of claims 9-11, 21 and 22. Manifestly, inasmuch as we find
that the subject matter of claims 21 and 22 is described by the
applied prior at within the meaning of Section 102, it
logically follows that we will sustain the rejection of these
claims under Section 103. As for claims 9-11, the claims
recite that the slag “forms a plurality of general arcuate
paths” (claim 9), forms paths “traverse to the longitudinal
length of the gouge” (claim 10), and “has generally linear
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007