Appeal No. 96-4117
Application No. 08/077,380
“within the eyeball,” a condition which clearly is met by all3
of the elements of the Figure 7 lens, whether located on the
outer surfaces of the lens or in the interior. Therefore,
this argument is more narrow than the language of the claim,
and is not persuasive. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348,
213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
The appellant also argues that “the Board’s
holding...[that] the PL lens alone should cure chromatic
aberration” goes against the purpose defined in the Cohen
reference (Request, pages 3 and 4). First of all, we made no
such “holding” in our decision. Second, the claim requires
that the lens have a pattern “correcting” chromatic
aberration, and not that it “cure” chromatic aberration. It
is our view that the diffractive pattern on the Cohen PL lens
accomplishes the specified function to the extent necessary to
meet the terms of the claim. No evidence has been brought to
our attention which mandates the opposite conclusion.
We therefore have granted the appellant’s request to the
extent that we have considered our decision in the light of
3See, for example, Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary, 1971, page 1186.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007