Appeal No. 2000-1371
Application No. 08/867,810
We address these claims together since they are directed to similar limitations
and the examiner relies on the same prior art. We have sustained the examiner's
rejection based upon product claims and reversed the examiner's rejection of the
method. Here, these claims depend upon both the article claim and the process claim.
The examiner relies upon the teachings of Hirukawa to teach and suggest the
manipulation of the focal depth and numerical aperture to "achieve desired results in
ablation procedures." (See final rejection at page 4 as incorporated into the answer.)
While we agree with the examiner that these values may be controlled, the examiner
has not identified why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to control them for a specific reason, such as to reduce the
"sag" or rounding in manufacture of an ink nozzle. Appellant argues that Smith and
Hirukawa do not recognize the problem of sag and the relationship of numerical
aperture and focal depth. We agree with appellant. The examiner finds the word "sag"
in Hirukawa at col. 14, but no explanation or identification that it is the same as "sag" in
the present invention. Furthermore, the teachings of Hirukawa concerning the
numerical aperture and depth of focus at col. 3 are disclosed in the background as a
"proposed" method of selecting a combination of factors. We do not find this to be
specific motivation which would have motivated skilled artisans to use the specified
range and achieve the specific values for the article of manufacture as the examiner
suggests.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007