>maybe they flick the beams on and off in a particular pattern, or use different wavelengths in a novel way, or have a unique mounting system that swings the be

>maybe they flick the beams on and off in a particular pattern, or use different wavelengths in a novel way, or have a unique mounting system that swings the beams off the work more quickly, etc.) then it would be perfectly appropriate for them to obtain patent protection on that improvement. If it turns out that they use one of those methods, don't you think that would be obvious? I think if the patent was specific down to the actual wavelength, pulse shape, and pulse size, well... maybe then that should be patentable, unless it turns out that those parameters are chosen according to a natural law (parameterized based on material density, melting point, etc...) I think certain things, especially in regards to manufacturing, are more than okay at being patented. But I do think it should be implementation specific, and if an implementation is dependent on a natural law with no alternatives, I'm not sure something like that should be patented, it would really depend on some things.