Ex Parte 6196681 et al - Page 10


                Appeal 2007-0554                                                                                 
                Reexamination Nos. 90/006,118 & 90/006,254                                                       
                Patent 6,196,681 B1                                                                              
                       We reject Appellant’s argument at oral hearing that the phrase                            
                “unitary structure for an eye cover comprising, . . . a soft inner portion                       
                adapted to engage the brow and nose of the wearer” in Appellant’s Claim 1                        
                necessarily excludes the unitary structure for an eye cover comprising the                       
                soft portion and hard portion of the nose piece depicted in Fecteau’s Figures                    
                19-21, 25A and 25B (Transcript of Proceedings, August 15, 2007, Oral                             
                Hearing, pp. 11-12).  In light of the nominal description of the claimed                         
                invention and lack of definition of the words and phrases used in the                            
                Specification in support of Appellant’s claims, we conclude that a broader                       
                reading of the scope of the Claim 1 subject matter, including the phrase                         
                “adapted to engage the brow and nose” (Br. App. Claim 1), is both                                
                reasonable and warranted.  Nevertheless, the Examiner appears to have                            
                adopted Appellant’s narrower interpretation of the scope of the claimed                          
                invention in the final rejection.  Accordingly, we turn to the question of                       
                obviousness as it relates to the more narrowly claimed invention.                                
                       The claims were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the                     
                combined teachings of Conway and Fecteau.  The Examiner appears to have                          
                argued that the unitary structure defined by Appellant’s Claim 1 would have                      
                been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art because it would                       
                have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to make the unitary structure for an                   
                eye covering which Conway makes by separately molding and chemically                             
                bonding together two sections of soft and hard materials “by a two-shot                          
                process in a single mold that chemically bonds the soft portion to the hard                      
                portion” (Br. App. Claim 1) with reasonable expectation of success.  The                         
                Examiner’s argument stems from Fecteau’s teaching to form the soft and                           

                                                       10                                                        

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013