Appeal No. 2000-0433
Application 08/741,070
of cross-linked silicone instead of silicon would lead to
unexpected results. However, claim 16 is dependent on claim
14 which, like claim 1, recites the step of securing the lens
bonding region free of enlarged anchor structure to the optic
member. As we have discussed above, it is our view that this
step is not disclosed in either Korgel or Kaplan. As such, we
will not sustain this rejection.
We turn lastly to the examiner’s rejection of claim 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Korgel in
view of Doyle.
In support of this rejection the examiner states:
Korgel et al meets the claim language, but fails to
disclose a step of forming a recess without removing
material as claimed. Doyle et al, however, teaches that
it has been known to use the same technique of forming a
recess as is set forth in the present specification.
That is, a needle is used to puncture a hole into the
lens; see Col. 8, lines 1-7 and Col. 12, lines 5-9 . . .
it would have been obvious to use the needle puncturing
technique of Doyle et al on Korgel’s lens for the same
reasons Doyle et al uses the same and because it would
not leave any removed particulate
matter near to hole as drilling would.[examiner’s
answer at page 5-6]
The appellants argue that if one of ordinary skill in the
art were to combine Korgel and Doyle, the lens bonding regions
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007