Appeal 2007-2618
Application 10/713,178
cannot agree with Appellants that the record lacks evidence bearing on the
limitations of this claim. Br. 8.6 We determined above that one of ordinary
skill in this art following the combined teachings of Onodera and Messer
Griesheim would have used known means to attach the removable laser
reflection shields of Onodera to the circular body of the hand-held laser
welding assembly by suitable means which would include clamping the
shield to the circular body in any manner. Finally, contrary to Appellants’
contentions respecting claims 12, 24, and 26 (Br. 10-11), the record contains
evidence showing laser deflection shields containing proximity sensors as
we discussed above.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Onodera, Ungar, and Messer Griesheim, further
combined with Sugiyama and with Teeple, with Appellants’ countervailing
evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed
invention encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 17 and 19 through 26
would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
6 We have not considered the references discussed by Appellants. Br. 8-9.
These references are not included in the statement of any ground of rejection
advanced on appeal. Cf. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n. 3, 166 USPQ
406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013