Appeal No. 95-4246
Application 08/201,052
obviousness.
On pages 16-25 of the brief, appellant makes reference to
each of the appealed claims individually. Appellant
presumably considers this to be a separate argument for each
of the claims in favor of patentability. We note, however,
that these “arguments” are ambiguous in that they merely
restate the claim without specifying any particular feature
thereof that is not suggested by the applied prior art. For
example, on pages 19-20 appellants state:
Claim 19 is separately patentable because it
recites that the handpiece further includes means
for focusing a laser beam transmitted through the
passage to focus the laser beam proximate the
aperture to vaporize the tissue of the heart wall
and create a hole therein. Neither Sharon nor Fee
[sic, McFee] teach a handpiece for a transmyocardial
revascularization heart synchronized pulsed laser
system which includes means for focusing a laser
beam transmitted through the passage to focus the
laser beam proximate the aperture to vaporize the
tissue of a heart wall and create a hole therein.
In that Sharon clearly discloses a lens 8 for focusing the
laser beam at a point ll at the end of the tip member, this
“argument” is not well taken. Similarly, appellant’s separate
reference to each of the dependent claims 19-22, 32 and 33
does not convince us that the examiner erred in rejecting
-12-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007