Appeal No. 95-2111
Application 07/771,173
invention would have known how to choose the energy density
and application time to achieve the desired outcome. As such,
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-12
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sinofsky. Sinofsky
discloses a laser apparatus which includes a pump laser 12 for
generating a beam of light of a certain wavelength, and an
optical fiber 16 for carrying said light (col. 4, lines 40-42;
Figure 1). The fiber conducts light to a distal end
terminating in a tip portion 62. In one embodiment depicted
in Fig. 4, the tip portion 62 is tapered in such a way so as
to cause the light to be gradually directed outwardly (col. 6,
lines 9-10; 25-30). The light is directed through a mirror 58
to crystal 52 where light of another wavelength is generated,
which light of another wavelength is subsequently used to
vaporize tissue.
Appellants in effect argue that because the
radiation from optical fiber 16 is not used directly to remove
tissue, Sinofsky does not anticipate the claimed subject
matter. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 is set out
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007