Ex Parte Denney et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 23, 201211363647 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte PAUL E. DENNEY, JAY R. EASTMAN, and PAUL M. FALLARA ____________________ Appeal 2010-002067 Application 11/363,647 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-002067 Application 11/363,647 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Paul E. Denney et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) unpatentable over Uraki (US 5,977,515, iss. Nov. 2, 1999) and Otsubo (US 6,507,000 B2, iss. Jan. 14, 2003). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on February 16, 2012. We REVERSE. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to an apparatus for drilling, cutting, and surface processing of materials using energy waves. Spec. 1, para. [0003]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A laser head for irradiating an interaction region of a structure with laser light to remove material from the structure, the laser head comprising: a housing; an anchoring mechanism reversably [sic: reversibly] coupled to the housing and releasably affixed to the structure by vacuum pressure, the anchoring mechanism releasably holding the laser head at a selected position in relation to the structure; a connector coupled to the housing and optically coupled to a laser generator, the connector transmitting laser light from the laser generator; a plurality of optical elements contained in the housing and optically coupled to the connector to receive laser light from the connector; and Appeal 2010-002067 Application 11/363,647 3 a containment plenum coupled to the housing, the containment plenum optically coupled to the plurality of optical elements to receive the laser light from the plurality of optical elements, the containment plenum confining the material and removing the material from the interaction region resulting from irradiating the structure with the laser light. OPINION The Examiner’s rejection relies on Uraki as disclosing “an anchoring mechanism reversably coupled to the housing and releasably affixed to the structure by vacuum pressure, the anchoring mechanism releasably holding the laser head at a selected position in relation to the structure” as called for in claim 1. Ans. 3; 5-11. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Uraki’s chamber 36 (chamber A) is an anchoring mechanism that is releasably affixed to the structure 1 by vacuum mechanism 30. See Ans. 10-11. For the reasons set forth by Appellants (Reply Br. 5, l. 14 to 6, l. 17), we cannot find by a preponderance of the evidence that Uraki’s vacuum mechanism 30 is capable of releasably affixing chamber 36 to structure 1 as required in claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on any teaching in Otsubo that might make up for the deficiency in Uraki. Accordingly, the Examiner has not established that Uraki and Otsubo render obvious the subject matter of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-18. We do not sustain the rejection. Appeal 2010-002067 Application 11/363,647 4 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 is reversed. REVERSED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation