Appeal No. 1999-0445
Application No. 08/351,583
from the appellant's disclosure. Rather, the sole basis of the examiner's rejection, as we
understand it, is that the disclosed processing means does not amend time, in all instances (note
situation c)), when the result of the pressure comparison indicates that the pressure change is
different than the standard characteristic.
We share the appellant's opinion, as expressed on page 2 of the reply brief, that the
claims do not require that time is always amended when the pressure comparison indicates the
pressure change is different from the standard, as urged by the examiner on page 3 of the
answer. The processing means as disclosed in the appellant's specification amends time, once
cornea flattening has been detected, when the pressure comparison indicates the pressure
change is different from the standard (i.e., when X(t) … 1) and the language in the last
paragraph of claim 1 requires no more than this. Another disclosed feature of the appellant's
invention is a safety routine which stops the compressing means (perhaps before cornea
flattening is detected) when the pressure appears to be rising too rapidly (e.g., when X(t) >
1.3). That this additional feature is not also recited in independent claim 1 does not render
claim 1 inconsistent with the underlying disclosure. In this regard, we note that claim 10,
which depends indirectly from claim 1, further recites that the processing means stops the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007