Appeal 2007-2554
Application 10/667,515
of the first and second laser beam generating means. Chui teaches that the
first and second laser cutting devices are supported in identical manner on
I-beams and "are independently moveable in response to signals developed
by any suitable control device" (sentence bridging cols. 2-3). We have no
reason to believe that the laser beams of Chui cannot be moved over the
same area of the substrate inasmuch as the movement of the beams begins
and ends at the same point on the substrate. Significantly, Appellants have
advanced no argument that the apparatus of Chui is incapable of performing
the claimed intended use. Rather, Appellants' arguments are directed to
Chui's failure to disclose a laser cutting method which corresponds to
Appellants' intended method.
We note that Appellants present no argument against the Examiner's §
103 rejection of claims 9-13 over Chui.
As for the Examiner's § 103rejection of claims 8, 9, 11, and 13 over
the admitted prior art, we perceive no structural distinction between the prior
art apparatus described at page 5 of the present Specification and apparatus
within the scope of claim 8. The apparatus of the admitted prior art, like the
claimed apparatus, comprises a first laser beam generating means and a
second laser beam generating means which focus a laser beam on the same
area of the substrate to be cut. While the apparatus of the admitted prior art
also employs a cooling fluid beam 14, we find that the prior art apparatus is
fully capable of cutting the non-metallic substrate without a cooling device,
which is all that is required by the appealed claims. It can hardly be gainsaid
that the first and second laser beam generating means of the admitted prior
art apparatus are incapable of cutting the non-metallic substrate without the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013