Appeal No. 2004-2249
Application No. 09/820,159
Under these circumstances, we share the examiner’s view
that Trese describes each and every limitation of the invention
recited in appealed claim 1.
Relying on the claim language “consisting of,” the
appellants argue that Trese is not anticipatory because the
reference teaches that removal of vitreous from the eye is an
essential part of the disclosed procedure. (Appeal brief at 6;
see also reply brief filed on Dec. 19, 2003, paper 18, page 2.)
We, like the examiner (answer at 4-5), find this argument
unpersuasive. While it is true that Trese teaches a method for
performing a vitrectomy involving a step of introducing plasmin
followed by a step of removing vitreous, the reference
undeniably describes a method for separating posterior vitreous
from the retina consisting of only one step - a step of
introducing plasmin into the vitreous. (Column 2, lines 4-12.)
Trese’s procedure for separating posterior vitreous from the
retina consisting of only one step (i.e., a step of introducing
human plasmin into the vitreous) is the very same method for
creating a separation of posterior cortical vitreous in an eye
from an eye retina as recited in appealed claim 1. Moreover, we
note that even the present specification discloses that a
portion of the vitreous may be removed after introduction of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007