Appeal No. 1997-1040
Application 08/175,893
Claims 1, 5 through 7 and 10 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Clarke in view of Addiss.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the respective positions of the appellants
and the examiner.
OPINION
All of the rejections are reversed.
Addiss discloses the use of glass coatings 4 and 6 on both sides of a plastic lens 2 (Figure 1) to
make the lens more resistant to abrasions (column 1, lines 18 through 23; column 2, lines 26 through 30
and 56 through 65; and column 5, lines 58 through 63).
Tillyer discloses two glass lens 1 and 2 joined together by cement 3 (Figures 2 through 4).
The examiner is of the opinion (Answer, pages 4 and 5), that “[i]t would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the lens art at the time the invention was made to cement the light weight,
glass coated optical components or lens elements together, as taught by Tillyer, in order to produce
structurally strengthened optical components or lenses.”
Appellants argue (Brief, pages 9 and 10) that the examiner has resorted to hindsight in
reconstructing the prior art to demonstrate the obviousness of the claimed invention. According to
appellants (Brief, page 11), Addiss is directed to a plastic singlet lens in which “no cemented
components were contemplated,” and Tillyer discloses “an ‘all glass’ cemented component.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007