Appeal No. 2005-1024 Page 9
Application No. 10/156,291
such as plastics having indices of refraction differing from that of polymethyl
methacrylate (column 3, lines 37-49) and Burk is silent as to lens material or fabrication.
Schlegel discloses a one-piece implantation lens made of a homogeneous,
crystal-clear, high-temperature resistant plastic, preferably vulcanized silicone (column
1, lines 17-19). Schlegel points out that the lens material must be relatively soft and
flexible, so as to be foldable, but stiff enough to guarantee stability of form of the lens
(column 1, lines 32-34), but does not teach or suggest forming a lens of such material
by molding. We thus conclude that the combined teachings of Burk, Volk or Koziol and
Schlegel fall short of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject
matter of claims 26-28, which require a soft molded aspheric lens molded from a soft
material.
Mazzocco, the alternative secondary reference relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting claims 26-28, teaches that intraocular lenses formed of a deformable material,
such as polyurethane elastomer, silicone elastomer, hydrogel polymer collagen
compounds, gels, etc., which can be deformed by compressing, rolling, folding,
stretching or a combination thereof, offer an advantage over conventional rigid
intraocular lenses because implantation can be done with a smaller incision.4 Mazzocco
further discloses molding such materials to form the intraocular lenses (column 13, lines
14-17).
4 Based on our reading of appellants’ specification (pages 2-3) and the prior art or record, it is our
understanding that materials which meet these criteria are considered “soft” within the field of intraocular
lenses.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007