Appeal No. 2000-0104
Application No. 08/850,647
must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention,
either explicitly or inherently”).
Cerola discloses two different arrangements for mounting
a catalyst member to the lens support structure of a contact
lens case: (1) the embodiment of Figs. 1 to 5, in which the
rim of catalyst member 62 is engaged by tabs 88 for a
“snapping engagement” (col. 5, line 50), and (2) the
embodiment of
Figs. 12 to 14, in which the catalyst member 90 has a
“friction-type fit “(col. 6, line 23) over coupler 94 on the
bottom of lens support structure 40. The catalyst member of
arrangement (1) is “easily removable and replaceable when
desired” (col. 4, lines 43 to 45), and the catalyst member of
arrangement (2) is “readily removable for replacement by a
user” (col. 6, lines 34 and 35). The examiner asserts that
the tabs of arrangement (1) and the friction fit of
arrangement (2) constitute mechanical locks, as claimed
(answer, part (11)). While he does not mention the limitation
“for preventing removal of the catalyst member from said
coupler” in the answer, he states on page 2 of the final
rejection (Paper No. 17) that “[s]ince [Cerola] teaches all of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007