Appeal No. 2000-0433
Application 08/741,070
As such, we agree with the appellant that the combined
teachings of Kaplan and Korgel do not disclose a method for
attaching a fixation member to an optic of a intraocular lens
which includes the step of “securing said lens bonding region
free of enlarged anchor structures to said optic member by
reducing the size of said recess,” as recited in claim 1.
Clearly, both references require that the end of the haptic
have an anchor structure with an enlarged end.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 1 or claims 2-13 dependent
thereon. In addition, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 14 and claim 15 dependent thereon because
claim 14 also recites that the lens bonding region of the
fixation member is free of enlarged anchor structures.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Korgel in
view of Kaplan. In support of this rejection the examiner
states that it would have been obvious to use cross-linked
silicone in the Kaplan device absent a showing that the use
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007