Appeal No. 2005-1945 Page 4
Application No. 09/777,510
the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 1 to 19, 25 to 34 and 48 to 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this
determination follows.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
With this as background, we analyze the prior art applied by the examiner in the
rejection of claim 1 on appeal.
Feingold
Feingold's invention relates to an intraocular lens, in particular an intraocular
refractive correction lens, and a method of implanting an intraocular lens to correct the
eyesight of an eye. A first embodiment of a positive intraocular refractive correction
lens is shown in Figures 1-3. The intraocular refractive correction lens 10 is defined by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007