Appeal 2007-1199
Application 10/124,648
only four locations, and with a ratio of haptic spread to optic diameter of less
than 1.5, and preferably around 1.3 for a 5.5 mm optic provides sufficient
stability without excessive angle contact. (Specification 5: 17-21).
5. Further still according to the Applicants, they have recognized
that the compressive force of haptics and footplates on haptics need to be
sufficient for the stability of the optical lens but not large enough to cause
irritation or pupil ovaling. (Specification 6: 4-6).
6. Claims 1 and 10 are the only independent claims on appeal.
They read as follows:
1. An intraocular lens, comprising:
a) an optic having a diameter; and
b) at least one pair of footplates, the footplates
being separated by a haptic and attached to the optic by a ramp,
the ramp being wider in a plane in which the optic lays than it is
in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the optic,
wherein the intraocular lens exhibits a force response of
approximately less than 0.5 mN when the intraocular lens is
compressed 1 mm.
10. An intraocular lens, comprising:
a) an optic having a diameter; and
b) a pair of footplates, each of the footplates
being separated by a haptic and attached to the optic by a ramp,
the ramp being wider in a plane in which the optic lays than it is
in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the optic, the optic,
footplates and ramps being made in a single piece entirely from
a soft acrylic,
wherein the intraocular lens exhibits a force response of
approximately less than 0.5 mN when the intraocular lens is
compressed 1 mm.
7. Citing Figures 10-12 of Nigam, the Examiner determined that
Nigam discloses an intraocular lens comprising an optic (22) having a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013