Appeal No. 1997-1140
Application No. 08/175,865
some cases the photoresist mask may be eliminated
all together. In this case the photo-stimulation
may be applied as a patterned exposure, etching the
CaF surface only where the photo-energy is directed
2
and not etching the CaF surface in the non-
2
stimulated areas.
See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51
(CCPA 1969) (during examination claims are to be given the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification).
The examiner further maintains that performing the
etching process of the "admitted prior art" in the ambient
light of the laboratory is sufficient to anticipate or render
obvious the invention of claim 23. However, according to the
method of claim 23, a CaF surface, once contacted with water,
2
is irradiated with visible and/or ultraviolet radiant energy
at an intensity sufficient to produce directional etching of
the surface. The examiner has failed to explain how ambient
light in a laboratory would irradiate a CaF surface during
2
the etching process of the "admitted prior art" at an
"intensity sufficient to produce directional etching of said
surface."
Furthermore, the fact that the use of a mask is well
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007