Appeal No. 2000-1844 Page 4
Application No. 08/506,794
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree for the reasons
that follow.
Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
A method of vision correction comprising shaping
first, second and third regions of a cornea having an
anterior surface to provide the first region located on
the anterior surface with a first vision correction power
and the second region located on the anterior surface
with a second vision correction power which is different
from the first vision correction power to enhance vision
at first and second different distances, respectively,
and the third region located between the first and second
regions with progressive vision correction powers which
include progressive vision correction powers which are
between the first and second vision correction powers.
After reviewing the teachings of the applied prior art, it is
our conclusion the subject matter of claim 1 would not have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007