Appeal 2007-1199
Application 10/124,648
have the same reactive force as is recited in Applicants’ claims 1 and 10
because the same structure and material is used.
What the Applicants do argue in the Appeal Brief, is this (Appeal Br.:
5):
Contrary to the Examiner’s position, nothing in the
Nigam ‘282 references teaches nor suggests an intraocular lens
having 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.
It is uncertain whether the conclusory assertion applies to each claim feature
individually or all three in combination. More importantly, however, the
Applicants do not address and discuss the Examiner’s explanation in support
of the finding that the named features are disclosed in Nigam’s intraocular
lens. The question of what is wrong with the Examiner’s rationale and
analysis remains unanswered.
The Applicants generally argue that Nigam teaches away from the
claimed invention by disclosing that its lens is stiffer along the optical axis
than in the plane perpendicular to the optical axis. Even assuming that the
allegation regarding relative stiffness in Nigam’s lens is true, it has not been
established or explained which feature of the claimed invention is at odds
with and cannot possibly coexist with the alleged stiffness characteristic of
Nigam. The Applicants’ approach is misplaced. For determining
Comment [S1]: Should there be a “,”
patentability over prior art, the name of the game is the claim. In re Hiniker after claim and not a “.”?
Co., 150 F.3d at 1369, 47 USPQ2d at 1529, not some other feature the
relationship of which to any claim feature has not been sufficiently
established. No testimony of any technical witness has been submitted to
the effect that a lens which is stiffer along the optical axis than in a plane
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013