Appeal No. 2006-1990 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/678,231
examiner’s reasoning (answer, page 4) is that the modification
would enhance the durability of the artificial eye.
Appellants' position (brief, page 6) is that the specific
differences between Nasca and Deeg is that the lenses are
entirely different structures, are used for different purposes,
and are made of entirely different materials. In Deeg, the
function of the lens is to focus images on the retina of a
natural eye. The lens is mounted on the iris of a natural eye,
and has no effect on the appearance of the natural eye. In Deeg,
the criteria for selecting the material for a replacement lens of
a natural eye is to reduce the weight of the lens while
maintaining chemical stability and biological inertness, and
(brief, page 8) suitable refractive index.
Turning to Nasca, appellants assert that the difference lies
in the density, hardness and sparkle of the lens. It is argued
(brief, page 9) that the structure, function, and criteria for
lenses and lens materials for artificial eyes on the one hand and
for natural eyes on the other are totally different, and that
there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in Nasca or Deeg
that the materials disclosed in Deeg for use in replacement of
lenses in natural eyes would be appropriate for use in lenses
for Nasca’s artificial eye.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007