Appeal No. 2005-1031
Application No. 09/998,073
workpiece surface rather than at a finite distance from the workpiece surface as in the claimed
invention. See Answer, p. 5; Elliott, Figure 15, element 416. However, the examiner argues that
the optical component that functions to converge the beam in Elliott is adjustable, and
accordingly, the apparatus of Elliott could function in the same manner as the claimed invention.
See Answer, pp. 9-10. The examiner maintains that the apparatus disclosed in Elliott "is wholly
identical, and structurally indistinguishable from the claimed apparatus." Answer, p. 11.
Appellants respond as follows (Reply brief, p. 2):
Although the optical component that functions to converge the beam at a
point is adjustable as noted by the examiner on page 9 of the Examiner's Answer,
the appellants note that the location of the beam's point of convergence as taught
by Elliott et al. is either at the surface of the workpiece to produce a knife edge
(Fig. 2A) or below the surface of the workpiece to produce the narrow reaction
region (Fig. 2).
Appellants arguments are not persuasive. There appears to be no dispute that the optical
component of the laser system that functions to converge the beam in Elliott is adjustable.
Therefore, the electromagnetic radiation source in Elliott is so structured that it can converge a
beam in close proximity to the surface of the workpiece, but spaced a finite distance therefrom,
as required by claim 46. For this reason, the rejection of claim 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Elliott is affirmed.
The patentability of claims 47-58 and 60-63 stands or falls with the patentability of claim
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007