Appeal No. 2007-0290
Application No. 09/778,464
2) Appellants’ patentability argument in the Brief is based on their
construction of the phrase “anti-reflective coating” in claim 1 to require a
mean reflexion value of 2.5% or less. During patent examination, claims are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as
it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re American
Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ.2d 1827,
1827 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner should construe the phrase “anti-
reflective coating” in view of the specification and the evidence provided by
Appellants, especially the following disclosures:
2a) According to the specification:
The anti-reflective layer can be any layer or stack of layers which
improves the anti-reflective properties of the ophthalmic lens such
that the reflexion value (per face) as defined by ISO/DIS 8980-4
standard is at most 2.5%.
Id. at 12, l. 34 to 13, l. 2.
2b) To support the assertion that “a coating which does not lower the
reflexion value (per face) to at least 2.5% is not considered as an
antireflective coating” by the skilled worker, Mr. Roisin states that “[t]his
value is the value that has been selected for defining an anti-reflective
coating in the International standard ISO/DIS 8980-4 which is presently
under discussion for approval.” Roisin declaration at 4. According to
Appellants, “this International standard was adopted.” Br. 12. However,
documentary evidence of this standard was not provided. Furthermore,
Appellants do not explain how the adopted standard is evidence of how the
phrase “anti-reflective coating” would be construed by a person of skill in
the art.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013