Appeal No. 2000-1844 Page 5
Application No. 08/506,794
having ordinary skill in the art. In that regard, it is our2
opinion that the applied prior art does not teach or suggest
the "third region" as recited in claim 1.
Independent claim 7 reads as follows:
A method of vision correction comprising: shaping
first and second annular regions of the anterior surface
of a cornea to provide a first anterior surface annular
region with a first vision correction power and a second
anterior surface annular region 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 shaping a third
annular region of the anterior surface of the cornea
between said first and second anterior surface annular
regions to provide a third anterior surface annular
region with progressive vision correction powers which
include progressive vision correction powers which are
between the first and second vision correction powers,
said second anterior surface annular region
circumscribing the first anterior surface annular region.
Once again, after reviewing the teachings of L'Esperance and
Ruiz, it is our conclusion the subject matter of claim 7 would
2In the rejection before us in this appeal (see page 3 of
the answer), the examiner did not ascertain the differences
between the prior art and any of the claims at issue.
Additionally, the examiner never determined if the ascertained
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art (i.e., L'Esperance) are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007