Appeal No. 2000-0634
Application No. 08/274,942
During the Hearing, Appellants also argued that the claim language “wherein the
impingement of the energy causing the crosslinking upon the at least partially uncrosslinked
material is restricted to the cavity and wherein the edge contour of the moulding is
determined substantially by the spatial restriction of the energy impingement, so that a
moulding is produced free from burrs or flashes” renders the claimed invention patentable
over Clark. We do not agree. Clark discloses the polymerization of the lens material
proceeds from the center of the mold cavity and the area adjacent to the mold cavity is
restricted by the diaphragm which functions as a mask to restrict polymerization. The claim
language “wherein the edge contour of the moulding is determined substantially by the
spatial restriction” would include the use of a mask to determine the edge contour of the
moulding.
The Examiner relies on the combination of Fogarty and Clark to reject claim 5 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants have not argued that the use of molds
having permeabilities to crosslinking energy in the process/apparatus of Clark would not
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as suggested by the Examiner. (Answer,
p. 5). Appellants argue that Fogarty does not remedy the deficiency in the two-step process
of Clark. (Brief, pp. 7-8). As stated above, Clark is not limited to a two-step process. We
agree with the Examiner’s determination that the use of molds having permeabilities to
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007