Appeal No. 95-0065
Application 07/568,348
We have carefully considered the record in light of
the arguments presented in appellant's brief and reply brief,
and in the examiner's answer. We conclude that, although the
references
applied by the examiner are certainly relevant to the use of a
laser to remove biological tissue, they do not make out a case
of prima facie obviousness with regard to the subject matter
claimed by appellant.
Although wavelengths in the claimed range of 1.4 to
2.2 µm are shown by Wolbarsht's Fig. 1 as having some
absorption in water, their absorption is not shown as being as
high as either the CO laser (10.6 µm) discussed by Wolbarsht
2
or the 2.7 to 3.1 µm range disclosed by him as having maximum
absorption and therefore "seem[ing] to offer some advantage."
In view of Wolbarsht's teaching of using lasers with high
absorption in water, we do not consider that one of ordinary
skill would find therein any suggestion or motivation to use
lasers, such as lasers in the claimed 1.4 to 2.2 µm range,
whose wavelengths are disclosed as not having as high an
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007