Appeal No. 2004-2249
Application No. 09/820,159
conclusions, we adopt them as our own and add the following
comments for emphasis.2
As discussed above, appealed claim 1 is directed to a
“method for creating a separation of posterior cortical vitreous
in an eye from an eye retina” consisting of the recited step.
Trese discloses a method for performing a vitrectomy on an eye.
(column 1, lines 7-10.) According to Trese, “[o]ne difficulty
in performing a vitrectomy is that the vitreous exhibits a
relatively strong adhesion to the retina of the eye” and thus
“[m]echanical removal of the vitreous from the retina of the eye
can result in scarring, tearing and other damage to the retina.”
(Column 1, lines 24-28.) To overcome this problem, Trese
teaches the introduction of human plasmin into the vitreous in
order to induce posterior vitreous detachment (i.e., detach the
vitreous from the retina) prior to removing the vitreous from
the eye. (Column 1, lines 37-52; column 2, lines 3-12.)
2 The appellants submit that claim 6 stands or falls
separately from claim 1 and provides reasonably specific
arguments in support thereof. (Appeal brief filed on Sep. 29,
2003, paper 16, pp. 4 and 7.) We note, however, that the
appellants rely on the same arguments for the patentability of
appealed claim 2 and 5 as they do for appealed claim 1.
Accordingly, we confine our discussion to representative claims
1 and 6. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2003)(effective Apr. 21, 1995).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007