Appeal No. 2001-1072
Application No. 09/087,141
a diffractive element that receives the optical pulse and diffracts it to generate at least
two excitation pulses;
an optical system that receives at least two optical pulses and spatially and
temporally overlaps them on or in the structure to form an excitation pattern that launches an
acoustic wave, electronic response, or thermal response that modulates at least a portion of the
structure;
a light source that produces a probe beam that reflects off the portion of the structure
to generate a signal beam;
an optical detection system that receives the signal beam and in response generates a
light-induced electrical signal; and
an analyzer that analyzes the light-induced electrical signal to measure the property
of the structure.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Zayhowski 5,394,413 Feb. 28, 1995
Rogers et al. (Rogers) 5,546,811 Aug. 20, 1996
Rogers et al. (Rogers) 5,734,470 Mar. 31, 1998
Nelson et al. (Nelson) 5,812,261 Sept. 22, 1998
(effective filing date July 15, 1996)
Nelson et al. (Nelson), “Optical generation of tunable ultrasonic waves,” Journal of Applied
Physics, Vol. 53, No. 2, Feb. 1982, pp. 1144-1149.
Claims 1 through 13, 15 through 19, 21 through 34 and 45 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 through 8
and 25 of Rogers ‘470 in view of Zayhowski.
Claims 1 through 13, 15 through 19, 21 through 34 and 45 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 through
33 of Nelson in view of Zayhowski.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007