Appeal No. 2000-0634
Application No. 08/274,942
mold cavity has been polymerized, any uncured lens material remaining in the reservoir also
is polymerized for convenience in later handling. (Col. 7, ll. 49 to 52). Clark discloses
when the material in the reservoir is allowed to polymerize a flash is formed which should
be removed. (Col. 8, ll. 47 to 52).
Appellants argue that Clark does not appreciate the claimed one-step masking process
for forming molded articles and that Clark is directed to a lens mold which is designed to
produce an unfinished contact lens by a sequential two-step process wherein the second step
is the removal of the flash. (Brief, pp. 3 to 5). We do not agree. As stated above, Clark
teaches a process for producing a finished molded lens that does not include a flash as
argued by Appellants. Appellants are limiting their arguments to the preferred embodiments
of the Clark reference. A reference is available for all that it teaches, not just the preferred
embodiments. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellants have chosen to ignore the portions of Clark that disclose polymerizing that
portion of the lens material in the mold which is adjacent to the edge of the mold cavity
should be avoided. (Col. 7, ll. 5 to 11). Clark discloses that the polymerization of the lens
material should proceed from the center of the mold outwards in order to avoid and,
consequently, blocking off the reservoir from the center section of the mold cavity. (Col. 6,
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007