Appeal 2007-0554
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,118 & 90/006,254
Patent 6,196,681 B1
Specification). Cited in the body of the Specification (Specification col. 1, l.
19; col. 2, l. 50), but not incorporated by reference, is Canavan et al., U.S.
Patent 5,457,505, issued October 10, 1995 (hereafter Canavan ‘505). The
Specification reports: (1) “For background, reference is made to U.S. Pat.
No. 5,457,505, which describes eyewear construction. Reference is also
made to commercially available sport glasses such as Nike sport glasses that
include some structure made by a two-shot process in a single mold”
(Specification, col. 1, ll. 18-22); (2) “The temple pieces may be substantially
of the form shown in the aforesaid U.S. Pat. No. 5,457,505 (note: two types
shown)” (Specification, col. 2, ll. 33-35); and (3) “The structure also readily
accommodates temple pieces that may be pivotable and extendable in the
manner described in the aforesaid U.S. Pat. No. 5,457,505 to allow
adjustment for a variety of wearers” (Specification, col. 2, ll. 48-51).
The problem any person having ordinary skill in the art reading
Appellant’s claims must face, and the problem we also encounter in trying to
interpret the scope and content of the subject matter claimed, is that most of
the terms in Appellant’s claims are not defined in the eight claims
themselves or in the one page, two column supporting Specification. For
example, the Specification does not discuss how, where, and to what extent
the soft inner portion of the claimed unitary structure is “adapted to engage
the brow and nose of the wearer” (Br. App. Claim 1). Nor does the
Specification define the “the two-shot process in a single mold that
chemically bonds the soft portion to the hard portion” (Br. App. Claim 1).
But for the drawings and the function to be performed by various portions of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013