Appeal No. 1999-2674
Application No. 08/192,979
appellant’s own teaching would one having ordinary skill in
the art have been able to derive the claimed method based upon
the examiner’s evidence of obviousness. Clearly, the art
before us would not have been suggestive of the claimed
coupler with a concave surface that is transparent to infrared
radiation, which concave surface is urged against the outside
surface of the cornea during the passage of infrared radiation
through the concave surface. As a concluding point, we note
that the patent to Baron does not make up for the deficiencies
of the Sand, L’Esperance, and Neefe disclosures.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007