Appeal No. 1996-2893
Application 08/370,153
unsupported by the record in this case.
Since claim 1 is the broadest claim and other claims contain further limitations,
Harbert also cannot meet the other claims. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of the
other above listed claims over Harbert also fails.
E. Regarding rejection of Claims 2, 7, 15, 19, 21, 24
The examiner has rejected these claims as being obvious over the combination of
Harbert as applied above and Burkel. The additional reference, Burkel, is used to teach
the use of spinel as the material for the making of the lens [answer, page 4, final rejection,
pages 10 and 11].
Since Burkel does not overcome the deficiencies of Harbert noted above, the
examiner’s rejection of these claims fails for the same reasons discussed above in section
D.
Since we are of the view that the prior art applied by the examiner does not support
the examiner’s rejection, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 6, 11
and 19. Therefore, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims
2-5, 7-10, 12-18 and 20-24.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the examiner’s rejections of the claims on
appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 24 is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007