Appeal No. 2005-1031
Application No. 09/998,073
46. Therefore, the rejection of claims 47-58 and 60-63 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Elliott is also affirmed.
B. Rejection of claims 64-69
Claims 64-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Elliott. In
contrast to claim 46, claim 64 requires an electromagnetic radiation source "configured" such
that upon operation of the source a beam produced thereby converges at a location in close
proximity to, but not on, the workpiece surface.
Appellants do not define the term "configured" in the specification. However,
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 241 (10th ed. 2000) (copy attached), defines the term
"configured" as "to set up for operation esp. in a particular way." See Texas Digital Sys. Inc. v.
Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1818 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("unless
compelled otherwise, a court will give a claim term the full range of its ordinary meaning as
understood by persons skilled in the relevant art"). Therefore, we interpret claim 64 as requiring
a system comprising an electromagnetic radiation source set up for operation in a particular way
for a given workpiece such that upon operation of the source a beam produced thereby converges
at a location in close proximity to, but not on, the workpiece surface.
In Elliott, the electromagnetic radiation source is "configured" for a given workpiece
such that upon operation of the source a beam produced thereby converges at the workpiece
surface rather than at a location in close proximity to, but not on, the workpiece surface as
required by claim 64. We recognize that the optical component of the laser system that functions
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007