Appeal No. 2007-0290
Application No. 09/778,464
2. The Examiner asserts that Taniguchi describes an optical lens that
contains each of these four elements. Answer 3-4.
3. For preventing electric charge from forming on the lens surface,
Taniguchi teaches a “second fluorine-containing organopolysiloxane film.”
Col. 8, ll. 22-25 and 33-36.
4. According to the Examiner, Taniguchi’s “second fluorine
containing organopolysiloxane based coating [is] deemed to have some anti-
reflective properties since the optical article has less than 2.7% reflectance
per face.” Answer 4. The Examiner asserts that this coating meets the
requirement of claim 1 of an ophthalmic lens comprising “an anti-reflective
coating.” Id.
5. The Examiner concludes that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the
art . . . . would have found it obvious to adjust the abrasion resistance and
anti-reflective properties of [the] respective layers for [the] desired
application.” Id.
6. Appellants provide a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 by Mr.
Philippe Roisin (hereinafter, “the Roisin Declaration”) in which the optical
properties of ophthalmic lenses, coated with various chemical films
(“stackings”), are determined. Roisin Declaration 2. Based on the results,
Mr. Roisin concludes that Taniguchi’s second film would not be considered
an anti-reflective coating by the skilled worker. Id. at 3.
ANALYSIS
During patent examination, the Examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013