The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte CANO, JEAN-PAUL
__________
Appeal 2007-0290
Application 09/778,464
Technology Center 1600
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before SCHEINER, LINCK, and LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent
Judges.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF CASE
This appeal involves claims to an ophthalmic lens. Claims 1-26,
which are all the pending claims, are on appeal. Br. 2. Claims 1-26 were
rejected under § 112, first paragraph, in the final Office Action, but this
rejection has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Answer 2. Claims 1-3, 5, 6,
10, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20-24 stand rejected over prior art. Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134.
“It is . . . . known to treat lenses made of organic glass . . . . to prevent
the formation of interfering reflections.” Specification 1: 16-17.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013