Appeal No. 95-2111
Application 07/771,173
The examiner also states that it is not clear
exactly what is encompassed by the term “not extending a
substantial axial distance from the tip of the fiber.”
The definiteness of the language in the claims must
be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always in light of the
teachings of the prior art and of the particular application
disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the
ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. In re Johnson,
558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977). Given the
discussions in appellants’ specification at page 4, lines 6-8,
page 6, lines 22-25, page 7, lines 4-6, and page 8, lines 3-5,
we believe a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
interpreted and readily understood the phrase “in an annular
pattern not extending a substantial axial distance from the
tip of the fiber” to mean that the laser energy emerges from
the fiber optic “in a pattern transverse to the axis of the
fiber with virtually no laser radiation leaving apically from
the tip portion of the fiber.” In view of the foregoing, we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, of claims 1-9 and 11-12.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007