Appeal No. 2001-0238
Application No. 08/859,020
process and that the optical emissions are proportional to the
amount of material removed which is a function of incidence
fluence (Id., column 1, lines 3-9).
However, Pronko discloses a system producing pulses with an
energy of 300µJ (p. 106, column 1, line 19) focused on an area of
~6.0µm. In the examples, the pulses contain ~40 nJ (p. 108,
column 2, line 16) or 250nJ (page 109, column 1, line 6). Both
the examiner and the appellants appear to concur that these
amounts are lower intensity (< 1010-1011 W/cm2)(Appeal Brief, page
12, lines 13-16)(about 1.4 x 1010 W/cm2)(Paper #5, page 3, lines
15-16) than that required by claims 2 and 11 (1012 W/cm2).
The minimum intensity of claims 1 and 10 is not expressly
recited other than by the functional limitation of the
requirement of hydrodynamic expansion of plasma. The
specification submits that such values are typically 1014 W/cm2
for 100 femtosecond pulses (page 13, lines 9-10) but also states
that the minimum laser focused requirement is 1012 W/cm2(page 8,
lines 7-12). Consequently, we interpret claims 1 and 10 as also
requiring a minimum focused laser irradiance of greater than 1012
W/cm2.
The examiner is of the opinion that a simple power increase
is obvious in order to form deeper features where needed, or to
speed machining when using repetitive pulses at a single location
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007