Appeal No. 2001-2359 Page 2
Application No. 08/161,194
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to an intraocular implant lens. The claim on
appeal reads as follows:
2. An intraocular implant to replace the crystalline lens of a patient’s eye,
comprising:
an aspheric lens formed of soft, bio-compatible material, wherein said
material is silicone.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claim is:
Blake 5,104,590 Apr. 14, 1992
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Blake.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 56) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 54) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
1A rejection of claim 2 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
was overcome by a terminal disclaimer filed by the appellants subsequent to the final rejection. See
Papers No. 58 and 59.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007