Appeal No. 2007-0290
Application No. 09/778,464
coating.” Appellants do not clarify this inconsistency nor respond to the
Examiner’s objection to the declaration.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Roisin declaration is insufficient evidence to rebut the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We affirm the rejection of claim 1. Because separate reasons for their
patentability were not provided, claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20-
24 falls with claim 1.
OTHER ISSUES
Claim 19 is not rejected over prior art. Upon return of the application
to the technology center, we suggest that the Examiner clarify in the record
whether the limitations recited in claim 19 are not disclosed or suggested by
the prior art.
If further examination of the claimed subject matter in this application
is undertaken, the Examiner should consider the following three issues as
they relate to the patentability of the claims.
1) As discussed on p. 2 supra., Appellants admit in their application
that a lens comprising an impact-resistant primer, abrasion-resistant primer,
and anti-reflective coating were known in the prior art. Specification 1: 26-
29. The Examiner should consider whether this admitted prior art
anticipates and/or renders obvious claim 1 or other pending claims.
The Examiner should also consider requesting under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.105(a) the information upon which Appellants based this admission.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013