Appeal No. 2001-0238
Application No. 08/859,020
connection with an exemplary dental drilling application, it
will be clear to those having skill in the art that the
laser system has operational characteristics that are
suitable for a very wide range of material removal
applications. For example, in the treatment of ear, nose,
and throat disorders, volumetric material removal is
required in various surgical procedures, such as middle ear
bone surgery, cholesteatoma, skull and jaw bone surgery,
selective removal of malignant tissue, and tympanic membrane
surgery.
Finally, at page 32, line 31 – page 33, line 3, we see:
Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the foregoing
examples and descriptions of various preferred embodiments
of the present invention are merely illustrative of the
invention as a whole, and that variations in wave length,
pulse duration, pulse repetition rate, as well as beam
energy density, may be made within the spirit and scope of
the invention. Accordingly, the present invention is not
limited to the specific embodiments described herein, but
rather is defined by the scope of the appended claims.
The appellants assert that this disclosure in the parent
case “described the use of the invention for general material
removal and for micro-machining;” that the claims in the parent
claimed the invention in a broad sense; and that all the
parameters of the invention claimed in the application on appeal
are shown in the parent application. (Appeal Brief, page 10,
line 18 – page 11, line 4). We disagree.
Claim 1 has several recited features, including using a
pulsed laser output beam from a solid state laser on a metal or
alloy workpiece to oblate into plasma 0.1 to 1 micron of the
metal or alloy by using a plurality of laser pulses which have a
pulse repetition rate greater than 10 Hz and a wavelength in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007