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. 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013