compensate for the low mask cruality and thus, would
safeguard against failures associated with mask qualit
(Emphasis added) (Paper 274 at 73).
Anderson's argument is not persuasive for the following
reasons. First, Anderson argues that Drs. Mizrahi and Erdogan
studied fiber photosensitivity because they were unsuccessful at
obtaining a phase mask. Several of the dates listed for studying
photosensitivity and grating growth rates (Paper 274 at 74-75)
are prior to the 19 November 1992 date when Anderson directs us
to the first activity of trying to make or obtain a phase mask.
Up until then, we do not know that the inventors were
"unsuccessful at obtaining a phase mask" as argued by Anderson.
The record does not support the argument that the inventors were
unsuccessful. Rather, based on this record, Anderson has failed
to sufficiently demonstrate that the inventors did anything,
prior to 19 November 1992, towards obtaining or making a phase
mask.
Anderson additionally argues that since the inventors knew
that they would obtain a mask of low quality, that they would
need to study the photosensitivity of fibers and that a fiber
with high photosensitivity could compensate for a low mask
quality. Anderson has failed to direct us to evidence that would
demonstrate that the inventors tried to obtain or make a phase
mask prior to 19 November 1992, or that they knew they would have
to use a mask of low quality.
31
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007