Appeal No. 2001-0238
Application No. 08/859,020
insufficient under Rule 131. Pronko, therefore, remains a valid
reference.
II. The Rejection
The examiner has found that Pronko discloses a method of
machining metals including producing a pulsed laser beam from a
solid state laser at a repetition rate of 1 kHz, a wavelength of
800 nm and a pulse duration of from 150 femtoseconds to 10
picoseconds; directing the beam to a silver metal workpiece; and
each pulse removing about 0.05 microns of material via
hydrodynamic expansion of plasma. The examiner has also found
that no damage occurs outside the heat affected zone of about 5.8
nm and the entire heat affected zone is removed; allowing no
thermal transfer beyond the removal depth. (Paper #5, page 3,
lines 4-12).
The examiner has also found that Pronko shows that greater
amounts of material can be removed by using longer pulse widths,
the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
produce a removal depth per pulse of from 0.1 - 1 micron by
employing a somewhat longer pulse width than the 200 femtosecond
pulse illustrated by Pronko. The examiner also concludes that it
would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the
invention was made to increase the beam energy to an irradiance
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007