Appeal No. 2005-1024 Page 3
Application No. 10/156,291
The Rejections
The following rejections are before us for review.1
Claims 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Koeniger or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Koeniger.
Claims 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Burk, Volk or Koziol in view of either Mazzocco or Schlegel.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the brief and
reply brief for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, to the
declarations submitted by the appellants, and to the respective positions articulated by
the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Koeniger discloses a soft aspheric (column 2, line 11) intraocular lens of HEMA
plastic which is cut and shaped when dry and hard (abstract, line 1) to a shape that will
1 The obviousness-type double patenting rejection was overcome by the filing of a terminal
disclaimer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007