Appeal No. 95-4462
Application 08/190,950
Appellants’ invention pertains to a handpiece for use
with a medical laser system. A basic understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,
the sole independent claim on appeal, which reads as follows:2
1. A handpiece for a medical laser system comprising:
a barrel having a passage for transmitting a laser
beam; and
a contacting wall attached to one end of said
barrel, said wall including: an aperture in communication with
said passage in the barrel, a solid face extending radially
outward from said aperture to the periphery of said contacting
wall, and a knurled surface on said face for preventing
movement of said contacting wall with respect to the heart
wall during surgery;[3]
wherein said aperture has a diameter which is
substantially similar to the diameter of said passage; and
2Subsequent to a new ground of rejection in the
examiner’s answer, claim 1 was amended by an “amendment” found
within the body of the reply brief (Paper No. 11). We point
out, however, that the practice of using the reply brief in
lieu of a separate paper to amend claims is improper and
inappropriate. See the last paragraph of MPEP 1208 and the
penultimate sentence of 37 CFR § 1.193(b). Since the reply
brief includes on page 1 the handwritten note “Please Enter,”
and since the examiner has responded in the supplemental
examiner’s answer (Paper No. 12) in a manner which indicates
that the “amendment” included in the reply brief has been
accepted, we will assume that the version of claim 1 found on
pages 1 and 2 of the reply brief constitutes a correct copy of
appealed claim 1.
3The term “the heart wall” lacks antecedent basis.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007