Appeal No. 2006-1990 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/678,231
The examiner responds (answer, page 5) that “in this case,
the Deeg et al. reference was combined with the Nasca and Smith
references merely to teach the concept of having a lens for an
eye being made of the various materials recited in the claims on
appeal.” The examiner (id.) points to the disclosure of Nasca
that the lens could be colored or pigmented for aesthetic
purposes. The examiner adds that the structural differences
between the eyes of Nasca and Deeg is irrelevant because Deeg
primarily focuses on the lens for an eye and the materials used
for the lens.
In the reply brief, appellants assert (reply brief,
page 2) that Deeg does not teach that hardness and durability are
desirable characteristics of replacement lenses for natural eyes.
It is further argued that Nasca relates to an artificial eye
that is a cosmetic appliance. One skilled in the art of
artificial eyes would not be motivated to employ the materials
used in medical procedures (as in Deeg) for treating human eyes.
From our review of the record, it is clear that the
references include disclosure of all of the limitations of
appellants' claims. The issue therefore, is whether an artisan
would have been motivated to use the lens materials of Deeg
in the artificial eye of Nasca. From our review of Nasca, we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007