Appeal No. 2000-0634
Application No. 08/274,942
ll. 46 to 47 and col. 7, ll. 30 to 34). Clark further discloses that polymerization of the
material adjacent to the lens is preferably allowed to occur upon removal of the
diaphragm/mask (4). (Col. 7, ll. 21 to 25).
Finally, we not Clark envisions an embodiment where the polymerization to the edge
of the lens may be the end of the polymerization. See reproduced below:
In the foregoing example the surface of the lens material in the reservoir is
inhibited from polymerizing because of the fact that such material is exposed
to air. However, for convenience in later handling, it is preferred that after the
lens material within the mold cavity has been polymerized, any uncured lens
material remaining in the reservoir also be polymerized. This may be
accomplished by placing the mold in a nitrogen or other inert gas environment
and subjecting the remaining reservoir material to ultra violet radiation.
[Column 7, lines 46 to 55.]
Although it is preferred by Clark to polymerize the remaining material in the
reservoir, in the absence of this optional preferred step the edge of the lens is delineated by
the diaphragm, as required by claim 1.
During the Hearing, Appellants for the first time directed our attention to column 10
of the Clark reference which discloses: “In view of the foregoing, it will be appreciated that,
as used in this specification, the term ‘lens’ includes lenses which are cast in the final
desired shape (except for edging) as well as semi-finished lens blanks.” This language does
not necessarily mean that the finished lens of Clark requires further processing in a
subsequent step as argued by Appellants. As stated above, Clark discloses the conditions
necessary for prevention of polymerization of the material adjacent to the mold cavity.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007