Appeal No. 95-0065
Application 07/568,348
(2) Claim 54 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
unpatentable over claim 15 of Sinofsky on the ground of double
patenting.
Rejection (1)(a)
The examiner states the basis of this rejection on
page 4 of the answer as:
Wolbarsht (1982) teaches using wavelengths
which are highly absorbed by the tissue to
be removed and suggest[s] that wavelengths
absorbed by water are desirable. Horn et
al
teach the desirability of avoiding damage
to intervening tissues when applying laser
radiation and discuss the use of an Er:
YLF laser and a pulse width of 10
nanoseconds.
L'Esperance teaches the desirability of
employing an optical fiber to apply laser
radiation. It would have been obvious to
the artisan of ordinary skill to employ an
optical fiber in the device of Wolbarsht
(1982), since this provides more
flexibility of manipulation, as taught by
L'Esperance (see column 3, line 65 - column
4, line 5) and to employ a wavelength in
the range of l.4-2.2 micrometers, since
these are strongly absorbed by water, as
shown by Horn et al (see the first
paragraph under DISCUSSION) and Wolbarsht
(see figure 1 and the last paragraph on the
second page of Wolbarsht); and to employ
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007