Appeal No. 2000-0700
Application No. 08/453,320
§ 103 rather than under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Since the examiner did not apply any
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will treat these responses as addressing the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102. (See recitation of 35 U.S.C. § 102 at brief, page 5
and heading of 35 U.S.C. § 103 at page 7).
Appellant argues, generally, that the prior art references do not teach or suggest
the invention as claimed with respect to the use of plural beams at the same time and
same space to effectuate any change in the memory. (See brief at page 9.) We
disagree. For example, Swainson teaches the use of “two photons from the individual
beams are simultaneously absorbed in a single molecule so that no migration is
required to generate the active region.” (Swainson at col. 9.) Clearly, Swainson
teaches the use of two photons (i.e., plural beams) at the same location and at the
same time. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Appellant argues that the
prior art does not teach the language of claim 1 with respect to the “radiation-timing
means for controlling the temporal phase of one of the two directed radiation pulses
relative to the other of the two directed radiation pulses in order to select the volume
portion of their intersection whereat occurs the two-photon interaction.” (Emphasis
omitted.) (See brief at page 10.) The examiner directs appellant’s attention to column
7 of Swainson for a teaching of this claim limitation. We find no support for the
examiner’s position with respect to controlling the temporal phase of one of the beams.
Therefore, we agree with appellant that Swainson does not expressly teach the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007