Appeal No. 96-4117 Application No. 08/077,380 “within the eyeball,” a condition which clearly is met by all3 of the elements of the Figure 7 lens, whether located on the outer surfaces of the lens or in the interior. Therefore, this argument is more narrow than the language of the claim, and is not persuasive. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982). The appellant also argues that “the Board’s holding...[that] the PL lens alone should cure chromatic aberration” goes against the purpose defined in the Cohen reference (Request, pages 3 and 4). First of all, we made no such “holding” in our decision. Second, the claim requires that the lens have a pattern “correcting” chromatic aberration, and not that it “cure” chromatic aberration. It is our view that the diffractive pattern on the Cohen PL lens accomplishes the specified function to the extent necessary to meet the terms of the claim. No evidence has been brought to our attention which mandates the opposite conclusion. We therefore have granted the appellant’s request to the extent that we have considered our decision in the light of 3See, for example, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1971, page 1186. 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007