Appeal No. 2006-1076
Application No. 10/147,252
of a laser as a conventional heat source for fusing a thermoplastics material. See Examiner’s
Answer, pp. 6-7. We see no indication that the examiner bases his conclusion of obviousness on
the use of Gordon’s method steps to secure Pall’s filter and end caps.
The rejection is affirmed.
Claims 26-29, 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pall ‘339 in view of Gordon ‘065 and further in view of Okada ‘882. The Examiner relies on
Okada for a teaching of a laser welding method which includes mirrors and a lens in which the
beam is moved back and forth while scanning in a zigzag pattern. The examiner notes that one
of ordinary skill in the art would be have been motivated to employ Okada’s teaching for sealing
an end cap to a filter material for the purpose of avoiding porosity in the fused material that
would compromise the seal between the end cap and filter media.
Appellants argue that “[n]either Pall nor Gordon involves welding (i.e. joining two parts
together by fusion of the two parts).” (Appeal Brief, p. 6). Appellants therefore maintain that
Okada is inapplicable to Pall and Gordon which liquefy/melt only one of two parts which are to
be joined. (Appeal Brief, p. 6).
Appellants’ arguments are unconvincing. As pointed out by the examiner, all three
references are concerned with heating a fusible material in order to join two parts. (Examiner’s
Answer, p. 7). Although Gordon’s method may not involve fusion of both parts, Gordon
specifically mentions that “[l]aser-welding is a known technique for selectively fusing adjacent
surfaces of the same, e.g., thermoplastic material.” (Gordon, col. 1, ll. 32-34). Accordingly, we
Page 8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007