Appeal No. 2006-1990 Παγε 10
Application No. 10/678,231
independent claims also require the listed natural or synthetic
materials found only in Deeg, we likewise cannot sustain the
rejection of claims 2-18, 20, 21, 23-28, 30, 31, and 33-58 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We turn next to the rejection of claims 1-4, 9-12, 17, 18,
20, 21, 23-25, 27, 28, 30,31,33-35, 37-46 and 51-54 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Deeg.
Appellants assert (brief, page 9) that the arguments presented
above concerning the propriety of combining Nasca and Deeg apply
equally to the combination of Smith and Deeg. It is argued (id.)
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’s position can
be found on page 4 of the examiner’s answer. From our review of
Smith, we find that the reference is directed to an artificial
eye for a human, that includes a mechanism for pressing against
an eye muscle of a user to give the appearance of a normal eye
which moves in the eye socket (Figure 5). Because Smith
discloses an artificial eye that does not provide sight to the
user, we find no teaching to replace the painted iris with a lens
used for providing sight to a person lacking a lens, other than
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007