Appeal No. 2005-1024 Page 8
Application No. 10/156,291
characterized by Koeniger as “hard” when in that state.3 Koeniger’s lens does not
become “soft” until after it has taken up aqueous humor in the eye, in which state it
would not appear to be “internally dry.” The anticipation rejection thus cannot be
sustained. Further, inasmuch as the examiner has not provided any explanation as to
why it would have been obvious to make Koeniger’s lens at once both soft and internally
dry, it follows that the obviousness rejection based on Koeniger also cannot be
sustained.
The examiner has also rejected claims 26-28 as being unpatentable over any of
Burk, Volk or Koziol in view of either Mazzocco or Schlegel. For the reasons which
follow, we shall sustain the rejection based upon Burk, Volk or Koziol in view of
Mazzocco but not the rejection based on Burk, Volk or Koziol in view of Schlegel.
Each of the primary references Burk, Volk and Koziol discloses an aspherical
intraocular lens, with the shape selected so as to achieve desired vision correction or
refraction. None of these references discloses a molded soft intraocular lens molded
from a soft material, as also required in claims 26-28. Koziol discloses that the optical
elements “can be ground or molded from suitable optical material such as optical glass
or polymeric material such as polymethylmethacrylate” (column 4, lines 1-3), Volk
discloses that the lens may be made of polymethyl methacrylate or other materials,
3 While the term “soft” is a term of degree, one of ordinary skill in the art of intraocular lenses
would certainly understand a “soft” intraocular lens to be one which is sufficiently soft and pliable to permit
folding to reduce its size during insertion into the eye. Within this context, the examiner’s position that
Koeniger’s dry HEMA lens, characterized by Koeniger as “hard,” is “soft” (answer, page 8) is unreasonable
on its face.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007