Appeal 2007-2618
Application 10/713,178
claims 1 through 17 and 19 through 26 as unpatentable over Onodera in
view of Ungar and in view of Messer Griesheim (Answer 3);
claims 5 through 11 and 19 through 23 as unpatentable over Onodera in
view of Ungar and in view of Messer Griesheim as applied, further in view
of Sugiyama (id. 4); and
claims 12 through 14 and 24 through 26 as unpatentable over Onodera in
view of Ungar and in view of Messer Griesheim as applied, further in view
of Teeple (id.).
Appellants argue claim 1 as representative of the claims in the first
ground of rejection which encompasses all of the appealed claims; argue the
limitations of claim 15 as representative of the limitations of the claims in
the second ground of rejection even though this claim is not included in that
ground; and argue claims 12, 24, and 26 as representative of the third ground
of rejection. Br. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Thus, we decide this appeal based
on independent claims 1, 15, and 26, and dependent claims 12 and 24 as
representative of the grounds of rejection and Appellants’ groupings of
claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
The issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case in each of the grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal.
The plain language of claim 1 specifies a hand-held laser fusion
welding assembly comprising at least, among other things, a laser reflection
shield coupled to, and at least partially surrounding either the nozzle or the
main body, and constructed at least partially of a material that reflects at
least a portion, however small, of the laser light reflected by the workpiece,
wherein the reflection shield is “configured such that no section thereof
surrounds any portion of the laser light once the laser light passes through
the aperture.” The plain language of claim 15 specifies a laser shield for
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013