`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box I450
`Alexandria. Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`90/009,625
`
`10/28/2009
`
`6482199
`
`Joseph Neev c/o
`Y-BEAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`20321 Lake Forest Drive
`Suite D-6
`
`Lake Forest, CA 92630
`
`4434
`
`‘
`
`DATE MAILED: 12/01/2009
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`.gotJm—rvfm 599% W? '. Egg/{b L FIN'GETQ,
`FIHGE’QJ SLAMIMA c; LIEBGSHAN) LLC
`Om»; COMMqu; stm
`llO\ NS OkAweu 8mm, Tl“ Home.
`.QILNUQQ'WDV’ DE.
`\QfiOI‘ “‘36
`
`L LVT'KGAT’LO u) Cow w $3 LB
`
`PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 1
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 1
`
`

`

`Commissionerfor Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark omce
`P.0. Bux1450
`Alexandria, VA 2231 3.1450
`wwwusptogov
`
`m ’
`
`§‘§\§ UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEW OFFICE
`
`
`\_, at:
`W
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER’S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`''''''''Scott Catlin
`
`.
`
`Abbott Medical Optics Inc.
`
`1700 East St. Andrew Place
`
`Santa Ana, CA 92705
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/009 625.
`
`PATENT NO. 6482199.
`
`ART UNIT 3993.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(9)).
`
`PTOL—465 (Rev.07-O4)
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 2
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 2
`
`

`

`_ontrolNo.
`
`
`Order Granting/Denying RequestFor _0/009625
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`6482199
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination
`'
`
`Exam'"e’
`BEVERLY M. FLANAGAN
`
`Art Unit
`3993
`
`--The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--
`
`The request for ex parte reexamination filed 28 October 2009 has been considered and a determination has
`been made. An identification of the claims, the references relied upon, and the rationale supporting the
`determination are attached.
`
`Attachments: 3):] PTO—892,
`
`mg PTO/SB/OB,
`
`'
`
`c)l:] Other:
`
`1.
`
`The request for ex parte reexamination is GRANTED.
`
`RESPONSE TIMES ARE SET AS FOLLOWS:
`
`
`
`For Patent Owner's Statement (Optional): TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication
`(37 CFR 1.530 (b)). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`
`For Requester's Reply (optional): TWO MONTHS from the date of service of any timely filed
`Patent Owner's Statement (37 CFR 1.535). NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME PERIOD IS PERMITTED.
`If Patent Owner does not file a timely statement under 37 CFR 1.530(b), then no reply by requester
`is permitted.
`
`2. E] The request for ex parte reexamination is DENIED.
`
`This decision is not appeaiable (35 U.S.C. 303(c)). Requester may seek review by petition to the
`Commissioner under 37 CFR 1.181 within ONE MONTH from the mailing date of this communication (37
`' CFR 1.515(c)). EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE SUCH A PETITION UNDER 37 CFR1.181 ARE
`AVAILABLE ONLY BY PETITION TO SUSPEND 0R WAIVE THE REGULATIONS UNDER
`37 CFR 1.183.
`
`In due course, a refund under 37 CFR 1.26 ( c ) will be made to requester:
`
`a) |:] by Treasury check or,
`
`b) E] by credit to Deposit Account No.
`
`, or
`
`c) E] by credit to a credit card account, unless otherwise notified (35 U.S.C. 303(c)).
`
`ifthird art
`cczReouester
`US, Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—471 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`reouester
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. -
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 3
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 3
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/009,625
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3993
`
`DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REEXAMINA TION
`
`A substantial new question of patentability affecting claims 1 and 2 of United
`
`States Patent .Number 6,482,199 is raised by the request for ex parte reexamination.
`
`Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in these
`
`proceedings because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant" and
`
`not to parties in a reexamination proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that
`
`ex parte reexamination proceedings "will be conducted with special dispatch" (37
`
`CFR 1.550(a)). Extensions of time in ex parte reexamination proceedings are provided
`
`for in 37 CFR 1.550(0).
`
`Service of Papers
`
`After the filing of a request for reexamination by a third party requester, any
`
`document filed by either the patent owner or the third party requester must be served on
`the other party (or parties where two or more third party requester proceedings are
`
`merged) in the reexamination proceeding in the manner provided in 37 C.F.R. 1.248.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. 1.550(0.
`
`Waiver of Right to File Patent Owner Statement
`
`In a reexamination proceeding, Patent Owner may'waive the right under 37 I
`
`C.F.R. 1.530 to file a Patent Owner Statement. The document needs to contain a
`
`statement that Patent Owner waives the right under 37 C.F.R. 1.530 to file a Patent
`
`Owner Statement and proof of service in the manner provided by 37 C.F.R. 1.248, if the
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 4
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 4
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/009,625
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3993
`
`request for reexamination was made by a third party requester, see 37 C.F.R. 1.550(f).
`
`The Patent Owner may consider using the following statement in a document waiving
`
`the right to file a Patent Owner Statement:
`
`WAIVER OF RIGHT TO FILE PATENT OWNER STATEMENT
`
`Patent Owner waives the right under 37 C.F.R. 1.530 to file a Patent Owner
`
`Statement.
`
`Amendment in Reexamination Proceedings
`
`Patent owner is notified that any proposed amendment to the specification and/or
`
`claims in this reexamination proceeding must comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.530(d)—(j), must
`
`be formally presented pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.52(a) and (b), and must contain any fees
`
`required by 37 C.F.R. 1.20(c).
`
`Submissions
`
`In order to ensure full consideration of any amendments, affidavits or
`
`declarations or other documents as evidence of patentability, such documents must be
`
`submitted in response to the first Office action on the merits (which does not result in a
`
`close of prosecution). Submissions after the second Office action on the merits, which
`
`is intended to be a final action, will be governed by the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.116,
`
`after final rejection and by 37 C.F.R. 41.33 after appeal, which will be strictly enforced.
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 5
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 5
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/009,625
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3993
`
`Notification of Concurrent Proceedings
`
`The patent owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 C.F.R.
`
`1.565(a) to apprise the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent
`
`proceeding, involving US. Patent No. 6,482,199 throughout the course of this
`
`reexamination proceeding. Likewise, if present, the third party requester is also
`
`reminded of the ability to similarly apprise the Office of any such activity or proceeding
`
`1'
`
`throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. See MPEP §§ 2207, 2282 and
`
`2286.
`
`Substantial New Question
`
`A substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) is based on the following prior
`
`art references:
`
`Steven L. Jacques, “Laser Tissue lnterations — Photochemical, Photothermal,
`
`Photomechanical", Lasers in General Surgery, June 1992, p. 531, vol. 72, No. 3,
`
`General Biology Research Laboratory, Houston, TX (hereinafter_"Jacques”);
`
`Mark. H. Niemz et al., "Plasma-Mediated Ablation of Corneal Tissue at 1053 nm
`
`Using an Nd:YLF Oscillator/Regenerative Amplifier Laser", Lasers in Surgery and
`
`Medicine, 1991, p. 426, vol. 11, Wiley-Liss, Inc., USA (hereinafter “Niemz");
`
`Tibor Juhasz et al., “Time Resolved Observations of Shock Waves and
`
`Cavitation Bubbles Generated by Femtosecond Laser Pulses in Cornea Tissue and
`Water”, Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 1996, p. 23, vol. 19, Wiley-Liss, Inc., USA
`
`(hereinafter "Juhasz").
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 6
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 6
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/009,625
`Art Unit: 3993
`
`.
`
`Page 5
`
`A substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) is also based on Bille, US.
`
`Patent No. 4,907,586 (hereinafter “Bille”), which is a prior art reference that was cited in
`
`the previous examination. On November 2, 2002, Public Law 107-273 was enacted.
`
`Title III, Subtitle A, Section 13105, part (a) of the Act revised the reexamination statute
`
`by adding the following new last sentence to 35 U.S.C. 303(a) and 312(a):
`
`“The existence of a substantial new question of patentability is not precluded by the
`
`fact that a patent or printed publication was previously cited by or to the Office or
`
`considered by the Office.”
`
`For any reexamination ordered on or after November 2, 2002, the effective date of the
`
`statutory revision, reliance on previously cited/considered art, i.e., “old art,” does not
`
`necessarily precludethe existence of a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ)
`
`that is based exclusively on that old art. Rather, determinations on whether a SNQ
`
`exists in such an instance shall be based upon a fact-specific inquiry.
`
`In the instant
`
`case, as correctly noted in the request at pages 14-15, Bille was cited by the examiner
`
`in the previous examination, but was not applied to the claims.
`
`In addition, and more
`
`pertinently, the instant request proposes Jacques in combination with Bille (see pages
`
`15-34 of the request) and Bille was not considered or applied in combination with
`
`Jacques in the previous examination. These two situations provide the new light under
`
`which the Bille reference is considered.
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 7
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 7
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/009,625
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3993
`
`A discussion of the specifics follows:
`
`The Bille Reference
`
`It is agreed that the Bille reference raises a SNQ as to claims 1 and 2 of US.
`
`Patent No. 6,482,199.
`
`It is agreed that Bille teaches a method for varying the
`
`volumetric power density of the laser to vary the rate of material modification from zero,
`
`through a transition range of tissue modification, to complete ablation (see col. 3, lines
`
`50-54 and col. 7, lines 28-46). Bille also teaches, through the recitation of a “quasi-
`
`continuous laser beam” a pulsed laser that emits a continuous stream of discrete
`
`pulses. For example, Fig. 1A shows two “emissions” (pulses) in a string of more that
`
`10,000 emissions per second where each emission has a peak energy intensity of 10
`
`megawatts and a duration 14 as short as 1 picosecond (see col. 4, lines 49-64).
`
`Between the emissions is a quiescent period 17, which is substantially and significantly
`
`larger than duration 14 (see col. 4, lines 49-64). Bille also teaches that, byadjusting the
`
`laser parameters, one can very the volumetric power density of each pulse from a very
`
`low level up to the point where the volumetric power density exceeds a threshold at
`
`which the tissue is modified and beyond, to a threshold at which the tissue is ablated
`
`(see col. 7, lines 28-46). Bille teaches that the volumetric power density may be varied
`
`by changing the beam intensity, by altering the focus and therefore, the spot size, or by
`
`changing the pulse duration (see col. 5, line 62 through col. 6, line 5). Bille also teaches
`
`that the beam intensity can be changed during the operation of the pulse source in
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 8
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 8
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/009,625
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3993
`
`internal ablation procedures (see col. 6, lines 5-8). Bille also teaches material
`
`modification in the form of water evaporated from the tissue and intermolecular bonds
`
`are broken to change the visco-elastic properties of the material (photoablation) (see
`
`col. 8, lines 35-37), which equates to at least two different forms of material
`
`modification: ablation and alteration of viscoelastic properties (see also col. 6, lines 31-
`
`43). Bille also teaches an interval between pulses that is long enough to allow
`
`interaction energy transients caused by the electromagnetic radiation pulse to
`
`substantially decay so that material modification is effected (see page 31 of the request,
`
`detailing the disclosure of Bille and pointing out that the down time between pulses is
`
`about 100 times longer than that taught by US. Patent No. 6,482,199). Bille also
`
`teaches a repetition rate of 10,000 repetitions per second (see col. 5, lines 8-10). Bille
`
`also teaches focusing the beam at a particular depth below the surface, so as to
`
`achieve the desired volumetric power density at that point (see col. 6, lines 5-8).
`
`In
`
`order for the light to reach that depth, the wavelength of the incident light must be
`
`matched to the material such that the material is substantially transparent to the linear
`
`propagation of light. Near-infra red light applied to biological tissue, such as the cornea,
`is an example (see col. 10, lines 30-45).
`
`The teachings identified above were present in the prosecution of the application
`
`which became US. Patent No. 6,482,199, but were not applied to the claims. Further,
`
`there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these
`
`teachings important in deciding whether or not the claim is patentable. Accordingly,
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 9
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 9
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/009,625
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3993
`
`Bille raises a substantial new question of patentability as to claims 1' and 2 which
`
`question has not been decided in a previous examination of US. Patent No. 6,482,199.
`
`The Jacques Reference
`
`It is agreed that the Jacques reference raises a SNQ as to claims 1 and 2 of US.
`
`Patent No. 6,482,199.
`
`It is agreed that Jacques teaches several different types of
`
`material modification, including photochemical ablation, photothermal ablation and
`
`photomechanical ablation, as well as non-ablative modifications of tissue such as
`
`coagulation, using pulsed lasers having pulse durations ranging between the low
`
`picoseconds and ten milliseconds (see Fig. 13 and page 555). Jacques also teaches
`
`laser having an output beam made up of a series of pulses of laser light, the pulse
`
`widths varying from 100* femtoseconds to 500 milliseconds (see page 536).. Jacques
`
`also teaches that, to obtain a desired laser—tissue effect, one must turn up the laser
`
`power (intensity) until, at some “threshold laser exposure", the effect is achieved (see
`
`page 531). Jacques also discloses the importance of the combination of fluence
`
`(energy over a particular surface area) and depth of penetration in determining ablation
`
`(see page 541). Jacques also teaches that at a certain energy level, photochemical
`
`ablation will occur (see page 543). Jacques also teaches the photomechanical effects
`
`of laser-tissue interaction, such as ablation at the surface or cellular damage within the
`
`tissue and photochemical effects , such as cross-linking and oxidative injury (see page
`
`550).
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 10
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 10
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/009,625
`Art Unit: 3993
`
`Page 9
`‘
`
`The teachingsidentified above were not present in the prosecution of the
`
`application which became US. Patent No. 6,482,199. Further, there isa substantial
`likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these teachings important in
`
`deciding whether or not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Jacques raises a SNQ
`
`with respect to claims 1 and 2, which question'has not been decided in a previous
`
`examination of US. Patent No. 6,482,199.
`
`The Niemz Reference
`
`It is agreed that the Niemz reference raises a SNQ as to claim 1 of US. Patent
`
`No. 6,482,199.
`
`It is agreed that Niemz teaches ablating the cornea in a controlled
`
`manner with a pulsed laser, by placing 50 lines, one of top of the other, in order to
`
`ablate for depth and working with a spot size that allowed two spots to be situated only
`
`15 microns apart (see page 428). The depth of ablation resulting is a direct function of
`
`the radiation energy, allowing controlled an predictable ablation (material modification)
`
`(see page 430). The operational parameters of the laser are such that the power
`
`absorbed by the cornea exceeds the "plasma threshold" (see page 426). Niemz
`
`teaches a pulsed laser that generated an output of pulses having a width or duration of
`
`about 60 picoseconds (see page 427). Niemz teaches that, to obtain the desired
`
`plasma-mediated interation, one must increase the energy density until visible sparking,
`
`indicating formation of a plasma, occurs (see pages 426-428). Niemz teaches that the
`
`combination of low pulse energy, picosecond pulse widths and small minimum spot size
`
`provides an extremely high peak power density of 10 12W/cm2, and fluence of 100
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 11
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 11
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/009,625
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3993
`
`J/cmz, which exceeds the requirements to achieve plasma-mediated ablation (see
`pages 426-428). Niemz teaches that the rapidexpansion of the plasma causes a shock
`
`wave (see page 430). Niemz provides several photographs of the modified material.
`
`Niemz also teaches a pulse repetition rate of 1kHz or 1000 pulses per second (see
`
`page 427).
`
`The teachings identified above were not present in the prosecution of the
`
`application which became US. Patent No. 6,482,199. Further, there is a substantial
`
`likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these teachings important in
`
`deciding whether or not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Niemz raises a SNQ
`
`with respect to claim 1, which question has not been decided in a previous examination
`
`of US. Patent No. 6,482,199.
`
`The Juhasz Reference
`
`It is agreed that the Juhasz reference raises a SNQ as to claims 1 and 2 of US.
`
`Patent No. 6,482,199.
`
`It is agreed that Juhasz teaches ablating the cornea in a
`
`controlled manner with a laser where the beam is focused down to a 5 uM spot, the
`
`energy per pulse is variable and the pulse repetition rate is controlled within a range
`
`(see pages 24—25). The operational parameters of the laser are such that the power
`
`absorbed by the cornea exceeds a threshold at which cavitation bubbles are observed,
`
`which are associated with plasma formation and photodisruption forms (see page 25).
`
`_
`
`Juhasz teaches working with a pulse laser that generated an output of pulses having a
`
`width or duration of about 150 femtoseconds (see page 24). Juhasz also teaches that
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 12
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 12
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/009,625
`
`Art Unit: 3993
`
`'
`
`Page 11
`
`the interaction energy transients that take the form of a shock wave with decay as it
`
`loses energy, until it becomes harmless (see page 27). Juhasz teaches that to ensure
`
`decay, avoiding overlaying two pulses is avoided (see page 30). Juhasz also teaches a
`
`pulse repetition rate of between 25 Hz and 1 kHz. Furthermore, since cavitation
`
`bubbles area below some layers or portion of the cornea, the corneal tissue must at
`
`least be in part transparent to linear beam propagation (see page 29).
`
`The teachings identified above were not present in the prosecution of the
`
`application which became US. Patent No. 6,482,199. Further, there is a substantial
`
`likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these teachings important in
`
`deciding whether or not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Juhasz raises a SNQ
`
`with respect to claims 1 and 2, which question has not been decided in a previous
`
`examination of US. Patent No. 6,482,199.
`
`Scope of Reexamination
`
`Since requester did not request reexamination of claims 3-16 and did not assert
`
`the existence of a substantial new question of patentability (SNQP) for such claims
`
`(see 35 U.S.C. § 311(b)(2); see also 37 CFR 1.915b and 1.923), such claims will not be
`
`reexamined. This matter was squarely addressed in Sony Computer Entertainment
`
`America Inc., etal. v. Jon W Dudas, Civil Action No. 1:05CV1447 (E.D.Va. May 22,
`
`2006), Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1472462.
`
`(Not Reported in F.Supp.2d.) The District Court
`
`upheld the Office's discretion to not reexamine claims in an inter partes reexamination
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 13
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 13
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/009,625
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3993
`
`proceeding other than those claims for which reexamination had specifically been
`
`requested. The Court stated:
`
`To be sure, a party may seek, and the PTO may grant, inter
`pan‘es review of each and every claim of a patent. Moreover,
`while the PTO in its discretion may review claims for which inter
`partes review was not requested, nothing in the statute compels
`it to do so. To ensure that the PTO considers a claim for inter
`
`the party seeking
`requires that
`partes review, § 311(b)(2)
`reexamination demonstrate why the PTO should reexamine
`each and every claim for which it seeks review. Here,
`it
`is
`undisputed that Sony did not seek review of every claim under
`the '213 and '333 patents. Accordingly, Sony cannot now claim
`that the PTO wrongly failed to reexamine claims for which Sony '
`never requested review, and its argument that AIPA compels a
`contrary result is unpersuasive.
`
`(Slip copy at page 9.)
`
`The Sony decision’s reasoning and statutory interpretation apply analogously to
`
`ex-parte reexamination, as the same relevant statutory language applies to both inter
`
`partes and ex parte reexamination. 35 U.S.C. § 302 provides that the ex parte
`
`reexamination “request must set forth the pertinency and manner of applying cited prior
`
`art to evem claim for which reexamination is regueste ” (emphasis added), and 35
`
`U.S.C. § 303 provides that “the Director will determine whether a substantial new
`
`question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent concerned is raised by the
`
`W...” (Emphasis added). These provisions are analogous to the language of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 311(b)(2) and 35 U.S.C. § 312 applied and construed in Sony, and would be
`
`construed in the same manner. As the Director can decline to reexamine non-
`
`requested claims in an inter partes reexamination proceeding, the Director can likewise
`
`do so in ex parte reexamination proceeding. See Notice of Clarification of Office Policy
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 14
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 14
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/009,625
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 3993
`
`To Exercise Discretion in Reexamining Fewer Than All the Patent Claims (signed Oct.
`
`5, 2006) 1311 06 197 (Oct. 31, 2006). gaggliq MPEP § 2240, Rev. 5, Aug. 2006.
`
`Therefore, claims 3-16 will not be reexamined in this inter partes reexamination
`
`proceeding.
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 15
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 15
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/009,625
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 3993
`
`Please mail any communications to:
`
`Conclusion
`
`Attn: Mail Stop “Ex Parte Reexam"
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Please FAX any communications to:
`
`(571) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Please hand-deliver any communications to:
`
`Customer Service Window
`
`Attn: Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Randolph Building, Lobby Level
`401 Dulaney Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`Examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be directed to the Central
`Reexamination Unit at telephone number (571) 272-7705.
`
`Signed:
`
`/Beverly M. Flanagan/
`
`Beverly M. Flanagan
`CRU Examiner
`
`GAU 3993
`
`(571) 272-4766
`
`Conferee:/J RJ/
`
`Conferee:
`
`A’é
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 16
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Exhibit 1006 - Page 16
`
`