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