Appeal No. 1997-1040
Application 08/175,893
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan to cement two of the plastic lens disclosed by Addiss together, neither of the cemented lens
would need a glass coating at the interface to the cement because that surface of the plastic lens would
not be subjected to the abrasions discussed supra. Stated differently, the skilled artisan would not have
looked to Addiss for a teaching of the use of a glass layer to separate a plastic lens from a layer of
cement. In summary, we agree with appellants that the examiner did resort to impermissible hindsight in
demonstrating the obviousness of the claimed invention based upon the teachings and suggestions of
Addiss and Tillyer.
Based upon the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 13
based upon the combined teachings of Addiss and Tillyer is reversed.
In the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 5 through 7 and 10 through 12, the reference to
Clarke was cited by the examiner to show that it is known to bond a plastic lens to a glass lens2
(column 1, lines 6 through 9 and 65 through 67). The examiner states (Answer, page 6) that “[i]t
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
provide the composite ophthalmic lens of Clarke et al with the glass coated plastic lens of Addiss, Jr. et
al, in order to improve the overall optical performance.”
2As recognized by Addiss and Clarke (column 1, lines 10 through 15), glass is more scratch
resistant than plastic.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007