Appeal No. 1999-1071
Application 08/453,770
Lastly, we have reviewed the supplemental examiner’s answer
in response to appellants’ request for reconsideration filed on
March 3, 2000. We are in agreement with the examiner’s comments
regarding parent case S.N. 07/425,371. As pointed out by the
examiner, the rejections in this appeal rely upon the reference
of Kaetsu (among others), which was not applied in connection
with parent case S.N. 07/425,371.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the brief and below, we reverse
each of the above-mentioned rejections.
I. The Rejections
The critical issue before us is whether the combination of
Kaetsu in view of Masura sets forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. In making this determination, we focus on the
crucial aspect of appellants’ invention wherein the composition
is curable by exposure to ultraviolet light to form a
substantially clear eyeglass lens in a time period of less than
one hour.
The examiner’s basic position is that it would have been
obvious to modify the compositions in the method of Kaetsu to
include the aromatic bis(allyl carbonate) monomer and the
tri(meth)acrylate monomer as taught by Misura. (answer, page 6).
The examiner states that substitution of an aromatic
bis(allylcarbonate) monomer of Misura in place of an aliphatic
bis(ally)carbonate monomer of Kaetsu “would have been expected to
be light polymerizable in less than one hour because the
polymerizable allylcarbonate functionality is the same and in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007