Appeal No. 98-2187
Application 08/051,033
Thus, after considering the combined teachings of the
applied references, it is our determination that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to appellant’s claimed methods of providing controlled
ablation of organic material (claim 62), eye tissue (claim
79), or, more specifically, cornea tissue (claim 90). For
that reason, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 62, 64 through 67, 70 through 77, 79, 80, 84 through 93
and 95 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in
view of Bille.
With regard to the examiner's other rejections on appeal,
we have reviewed the teachings of L’Esperance, Baron and
Menger relied upon by the examiner, but find nothing therein
which alters our view with regard to the basic combination of
Lin and Bille. Therefore, the examiner’s rejections of
dependent claims 68, 69, 78, 81 through 83, 94 and 96 through
98 will likewise not be sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007