Appeal No. 2006-1076
Application No. 10/147,252
are in agreement with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered
Okada’s laser welding method pertinent to the problem of ensuring a leakproof seal between
Pall’s end caps and filter. See Okada, col. 1, ll. 6-7 (“The present invention relates to a laser
welding method which increases the suppression of defective welding.”)
The rejection is affirmed.
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pall ‘339 in view of
Gordon ‘065 and further in view of the abstract of the Japanese Reference 61229492-A. The
examiner relies on JP ’492 for a teaching of masking plates used to protect portions of an object
during laser treatment.
Appellants maintain that JP’492 uses masking plates to allow laser light to form
corresponding holes in a substrate. Appellants argue that application of this method to Pall’s end
caps would undermine Pall’s requirement of preventing leakage between the end caps and filter.
Appellants’ arguments are unconvincing. As pointed out by the examiner, “the JP ‘492
abstract has been relied upon solely for his teaching of using masking plates 2a and 2b having the
benefit of protecting areas that are not to be laser treated.” (Examiner’s Answer, p. 7).
Appellants’ arguments fail to address this rationale for combining JP ‘492 with Pall and Gordon
and, are, therefore, ineffective in rebutting the examiner’s prima facie showing of obviousness.
The rejection is affirmed.
Page 9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007