Appeal No. 2005-1945 Page 8
Application No. 09/777,510
design means that the lens can be made very thin, with the result that oxygen
permeability and the wearing comfort associated therewith are optimal.
Claim 1
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).
Based on our analysis and review of Feingold and claim 1, it is our opinion that
the only difference is the limitation that "said optical part and said support element
together have a concave posterior surface which is part of a non-spherical surface that
is rotation symmetric around the optical axis of said optical part, wherein the intersection
between said non-spherical surface and any plane containing the optical axis represents
a flawless curve free from discontinuities and points of inflection." In that regard, the
concave posterior surfaces of Feingold's lenses either are spherical or include
discontinuities and points of inflection (e.g., Fig. 17) as shown in the drawings.
With regard to this difference, we reach the conclusion that the combined
teachings of Feingold and Wanders fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Specifically, we find that the combined teachings of Feingold and Wanders would not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007