Appeal No. 2000-1844 Page 7
Application No. 08/506,794
Independent claim 10 reads as follows:
A method of vision correction comprising: directing
laser energy to a mask to provide a modulated laser beam
having different energy levels at different locations
across the modulated laser beam; and directing the
modulated laser beam to a cornea of a patient to ablate a
region of the cornea to different degrees to provide the
cornea with progressive vision correction powers.
It is our conclusion the subject matter of claim 10 would not
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art from the combined
teachings of L'Esperance and Ruiz. In that regard, it is our
opinion that the combined teachings of L'Esperance and Ruiz
are not suggestive of directing a modulated laser beam to a
cornea of a patient in which the modulated laser beam has
different energy levels at different locations across the
modulated laser beam as recited in claim 10.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying
L'Esperance to meet the above-noted limitations of claims 1, 7
and 10 would stem from hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellant's own disclosure. The use of such hindsight
knowledge to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is, of course, impermissible. See, for example, W. L.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007