Appeal 2007-0554
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,118 & 90/006,254
Patent 6,196,681 B1
We have considered all the evidence relied upon by the Examiner in
support of the conclusion that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and all the evidence to the contrary, most particularly
the Declaration of Phillip M. Johnson, Vice President of Research and
Development and Quality Assurance of Bacou-Dalloz USA, Inc., the alleged
owner of the patent, under 37 CFR § 1.132, and the support therefor. We
affirm all the appealed rejections. The following factual findings and legal
determinations support our conclusions.
Claim interpretation
Claims 1-5 are reproduced below (Appeal Br. (Br.), (vii) Claims
Appendix (App.)):
1. A unitary structure for an eye covering comprising,
a soft inner portion adapted to engage the brow and nose of a
wearer and a hard outer portion adapted to support a transparent
lens portion and temple pieces and formed by a two-shot
process in a single mold that chemically bonds the soft portion
to the hard portion.
2. A unitary structure in accordance with claim 1 wherein said unitary
structure is formed with a nose piece with the soft portion
thereof having a plurality of flexible fingers adapted for
engaging the nose of a wearer.
3. A unitary structure in accordance with claim 1 and further
comprising, a transparent lens portion detachably secured to the
hard portion and depending from the brow portion thereof.
4. A unitary structure in accordance with claim 2 and further
comprising, a transparent lens portion detachably secured to the
hard portion and depending from the brow portion thereof.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013