Appeal No. 95-2111
Application 07/771,173
in “comprising” format and thus does not preclude the presence
of additional elements such as Sinofsky’s second crystal 52.
In addition, claim 1 does not recite that the laser light
exiting the optical fiber is used directly to cut tissue.
Thus, appellants’ argument is not commensurate in scope with
the actual scope of claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Sinofsky.
Appellants have not presented arguments directed to
the separate patentability of claim 11, thus claim 11 will
stand or fall with claim 1. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567,
1570, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We will therefore
sustain this rejection as it relates to claim 11 as well.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 8 as anticipated by Vassiliadis. We find that Vassiliadis
discloses a dental laser assembly comprising a laser light
generating means 12 that provides a beam of light into an
optical fiber 22 which conducts the light to a distal end
terminating in a tip portion 212 which in one embodiment
depicted in Figure 10 is tapered. The examiner states:
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007