Appeal No. 95-2111
Application 07/771,173
In regard to claim 10, the examiner contends that
the term “its” in line 2 is indefinite as the antecedent
thereof is unclear and “the full length” in line 6 lacks
positive antecedent basis. Appellants do not dispute the
examiner’s position. Rather, appellants contend on page 8 of
the amended brief that an amendment to the claims was filed
and should have been entered and that had the amendment been
entered it would have overcome this rejection. Since
appellants have not pointed out how the examiner erred in this
rejection, and have in effect acquiesced therein, we are
constrained to affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, of claim 10.
We turn now to the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. In explaining this rejection
the examiner states:
Applicant’s disclosure has not taught one
of ordinary skill to form an “annular
pattern” and has not disclosed how to
prevent the intense coherent beam of light
from burning away the root canal in an
annular pattern [Examiner’s Answer at page
5].
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007