Appeal No. 2006-3179 Page 11
Application No. 10/477,069
described in Table 1 (page 6) of Gupta to be “50-100 A.”5 Such thicknesses can be
achieved using Ogawa’s compounds. See Ogawa, Example 2, line 4, reporting a
thickness of 5 nm or 50 angstrom units, and Example 4, line 59, with a thickness of
7 nm or 70 angstrom units. Consequently, we do not find Appellants’ argument to be
persuasive.
In sum, we conclude that the Examiner has provided adequate evidence to
establish a case of prima facie obviousness of claim 1. Claims 3, 5, and 7-9 were not
argued separately, and thus fall with claim 1. This rejection is affirmed.
Gupta, Ogawa, and Mansson
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gupta in view
of Ogawa, and further in view of Mänsson. Claim 2 reads as follows:
2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that the intraocular
lens is a silicone lens.
Claim 2 is drawn to a method of passivating the surface of an intraocular lens
that is fabricated from silicone. The Examiner argues that, in view of Mänsson’s
teaching that intraocular lenses can be produced from silicone, it would have been
obvious to have surface-modified them for the same reasons Gupta teaches for acrylic-
based lens. Answer, page 7, § 3.
Appellants challenge the rejection, arguing that Mänsson does not describe “the
use of passivated lens surfaces to avoid contamination of the lens surface by proteins.”
Brief, ¶ spanning pages 8-9.
5 “A” is being used to represent “angstrom unit,” which is equal to 10 nm.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007