Appeal No. 95-4246
Application 08/201,052
claim would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled
artisan in view of the combined teachings of the applied
references.
Claim 29 depends from claim 18 and further requires that
the barrel is angled and has a deflector means for directing
the laser beam along the angled barrel. Claim 30 adds that
the deflecting means is a mirror. It is the examiner’s
position that it would have been further obvious to provide
Sharon with such features in view of the teachings of
Vassiliadis in Figure 4 of a handpiece having an angled end
portion and a mirror 80 for deflecting a laser beam
therealong. In that the examiner’s position is reasonable and
has not been specifically disputed by appellants, we will also
sustain this rejection.
Each of the examiner’s rejections are sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
-15-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007