Appeal No. 2006-3179 Page 12
Application No. 10/477,069
We agree with the Examiner’s argument. Gupta establishes a general need to
improve the surface properties of lens to ensure they are compatible with biological use.
Gupta, page 2, lines 5-16. This requirement is dictated by the environment into which
the lens is placed, not the material which comprises the lens. Appellants have not
established that a silicone lens would not have been reasonably expected to require
surface modification. Accordingly, this rejection is affirmed for the reasons set forth by
the Examiner.
Gupta, Ogawa, Milligan, and Gasmena
Claims 4 and 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Gupta in view of Ogawa, and further in view of Milligan6 and Gasmena.7 Claim 4 reads
as follows:
4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that the solution is
acidified and comprises between 0.5% by weight and 2% by weight of the
fluoroalkyl silane.
Claims 4 and 10 require that the coating solution is “acidified” and contains a
specific weight percent of the claimed fluoroalkyl silane. The Examiner provides a well-
reasoned statement to support the rejection which do not find necessary to repeat here.
Answer, page 8. Appellants argue that Milligan is from a “divergent art,” and
consequently, motivation is lacking to have combined the references. Brief, page 9.
“Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous:
(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor,
6 Milligan, U.S. Pat. No. 5,663,215, issued Sept. 2, 1997
7 Gasmena, U.S. Pat. No. 5,417,744, issued May 23, 1995
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007