Appeal Number: 2006-1935
Application Number: 09/726,953
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellants
regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed July
28, 2005) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (filed April 13,
2005) and reply brief (filed October 3, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellants’
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations that follow.
Claims 1 through 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kawesch in view of
Glockler.
We note that the appellants have elected to argue claims 1 through 11 as a group. Therefore
we select claim 1 as a representative claim.
The appellants argue that Kawasch’s system is especially made to dehydrate the corneal flap
in contrast with the claim limitation that “the cornea is not dehydrated by the flow of air.” [See
Brief, p. 4-5]. The appellants further argue that Kawasch’s fig. 4 shows that the flow of air
would directly impinge and thus dehydrate the cornea in contrast with the claimed “flow of air
above the cornea of the patient from one side of the cornea to another side of the cornea.” [See
Brief, p. 6].
The examiner responds that the air flow module of claim 1 has a structure that “can direct a
flow of air above the cornea of the patient from one side of the cornea to another side of the
cornea, at a distance so that the cornea is not dehydrated by the flow of air.” The examiner
argues that so long as the structure is capable of achieving this result, the claim limitation is met,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007