Appeal No. 96-4117
Application No. 08/077,380
8, 11, 13 and 14 as being anticipated by Cohen, After 2
careful consideration of the arguments presented by the
appellant in the request, we have concluded that our decision
is sound, and we shall not modify it.
The appellant’s first argument is that the lens system
disclosed in Figure 7 of Cohen requires two lenses to achieve
correction of chromatic aberration, whereas the claimed
invention requires only one. The appellant bases this
conclusion upon Cohen’s “detailed explanation (columns 1, 2
and 3)” (Request, page 2). However, the appellant has not
pointed out where in these three columns of text the basis for
this conclusion is found, and such is not apparent to us. Nor
has the appellant directed us to evidence which would support
of such a conclusion. As we understand the appellant’s
second argument, it is that the lens surface having the
diffractive pattern in Cohen’s Figure 7 “PL” lens, which
formed the basis of the rejection, is not “intraocular”
because it is not on an exterior surface of the lens (Request,
page 3). However, the common definition of intraocular is
2The examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9 and 10 was not
sustained.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007