Appeal No. 1997-2646
Application 08/103,089
directing a pulsed laser beam at such a volume with an amount
of energy effective for photoablating the region without
causing substantial damage to the surrounding tissue.
Independent claim 1 is as follows:
1. A method for selective removal of ocular lens tissue,
for the correction of vision defects, said method consisting
essentially of the steps of:
focusing a laser into an ocular lens with a focal
point below an anterior surface of the ocular lens where
ablation is intended to occur;
pulsing said laser at said focal point; and
moving the laser focal point towards the ocular lens
anterior surface and pulsing said laser at a selected
volume of ocular lens, where ablation is intended to
occur, said selected volume being of a size enabling
resolve by adjacent healthy ocular lens tissue.
The Examiner relies on the following references:1
L’Esperance, Jr. 4,538,608 Sep. 3, 1985
Bille et al. (Bille) 4,907,586 Mar. 13, 1990
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 in
view of Bille, claims 1-8, 18, and 20-24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Bille, and claims 9-16, 19, 25,
1The examiner’s answer mailed October 13, 1995 also lists
Aron Nee Rosa et al. as prior art of record. However, only
Bille and L’Esperance are used as a basis for a rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007