Appeal No. 2003-0260 Page 5
Application No. 09/507,601
In the obviousness rejection before us in this appeal (answer, pp. 3-4), the
examiner (1) ascertained2 that Kelman meets the claim language except for the dioptic
power; and (2) concluded that it would have been obvious, in view of either Stoy or
Blumenthal, to make the Kelman lens into a 20 diopter power lens or greater so that
greater correction could be made to a patient's eye who is in need of such.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 6-12; reply brief, pp. 1-4) that Kelman does not
meet all the claim language except for the dioptic power. Specifically, the appellants
argue that the fixation means coupled to a resilient, deformable silicone based optic as
recited in independent claims 21 and 34 is not taught by Kelman. We agree.
Kelman teaches two embodiments of an intraocular lens for implantation in an
eye having a resilient, deformable silicone based optic.3 The first embodiment (Figures
4-6) has a deformable lens body 71 with a diameter of 6 mm. made of silicone rubber.
The lens body 71 may be molded, glued or otherwise attached to a position-fixation
member 72, preferably along a chord of the lens body 71. The second embodiment
2 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966). In this rejection, the examiner did not set forth the pertinent teachings of the applied
prior art.
3 The other embodiments of Kelman (i.e., the embodiment of Figures 1-3 and the embodiment of
Figures 9-10) of an intraocular lens for implantation in an eye do not have a resilient, deformable silicone
based optic.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007