Appeal No. 2006-3179 Page 13
Application No. 10/477,069
whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor is involved.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ.2d 1058, 1060
(Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner argues that both “Milligan and Gasmena both are
directed to the protective coatings art. As such, this is within the field of endevor [sic]
[of] the primary reference.” Answer, page 13. We do not find any flaw in this reasoning,
and Appellants have not identified a specific deficiency in it. Accordingly, this rejection
is affirmed.
Gupta, Ogawa, and Bechetoille
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gupta in view
of Ogawa, and further in view of Bechetoille.8 Claim 6 reads as follows:
6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that the fluorine
content in the surface of the intraocular lens after the immersion treatment
is between 2% by weight and 15% by weight.
The Examiner states that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to perform the surface-modification process of the combination of Gupta and
Ogawa to produce an IOL with a surface fluorine weight percent of 15% because
Bechetoille et al. teaches that such a fluorine content is sufficient to impart the
properties required by an IOL.” Answer, page 10.
Appellants urge that “Bechetoille … refers to a totally different kind of fluorination
of the lens surface both chemically and structurally such that the fluorine content values
… could not be compared to those cited in claim 6.” Brief, page 10. However,
Appellants do not describe the nature of this difference. In this regard, Bechetoille
teaches adding F, CF, CF2, and CF3 groups to the lens surface. Bechetoille (English
8 Bechetoille et al. (Bechetoille), EP 487 418 B1 (English translation from French)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007