Ex Parte Denney et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 23, 2012

11363647 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2012)

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