Appeal No. 2001-0238
Application No. 08/859,020
(Paper #5, page 3, last 4 lines). We disagree. The point of
the Pronko reference is to demonstrate that the shorter pulse
widths have a greater resolution for use in ablation (Pronko,
page 106, column 1, first paragraph).
We are, therefore, unable to agree with the examiner’s
position that one of skill in the art would be motivated to
increase the power by at least about a factor of 10 to speed
machining, when the reference itself is concerned with the
resolution of the ablation and the reduction of diffused heat.
Consequently, we shall reverse this rejection.
REVERSED
JEFFREY T. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMES T. MOORE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Henry P. Sartorio
Deputy Laboratory Counsel for Patents
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808 L 703
Livermore, CA 94551
JTM/ki
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: November 3, 2007