Appeal 2007-0554
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,118 & 90/006,254
Patent 6,196,681 B1
hard sections of its unitary nose piece for an eye covering in a single co-
injection molding step, as opposed to prior art processing whereby the two
sections would be separately molded and chemically bonded together, so to
achieve substantial savings in both processing and assembly time. We see
no reversible error in the examiner’s position.
Appellant cannot credibly deny that persons having ordinary skill in
the art would have been able to make and use a more complex unitary
structure of the type described by Conway using the single co-injection
molding process used by Fecteau to make its nosepiece without undue
experimentation or additional instruction. Appellant’s Specification
provides no more instruction to make and use its complex unitary structure
for an eye covering than the combined teachings of Conway and Fecteau
would have provided persons having ordinary skill in the art.
We also agree with the Examiner that it would have been prima facie
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a single co-
injection mold to make the eyewear described or suggested by Conway with
the soft portion of the nose piece “having a plurality of flexible fingers
adapted for engaging the nose of a wearer” (Br. App. Claim 2) in view of
Chiang’s teaching. Chiang’s Figure 4B eyewear includes “base sections 20
extend[ing] a distance from the rim 10 with the contact sections 21 further
extending therefrom . . . for more comfortable engagement with the wearer’s
face” (Chiang, col. 3, ll. 47-51). Chiang describes (Chiang, col. 3, ll. 57-
63):
The face contact means 2 comprises a plurality of slits 201 extending
from the free ends of the contact sections 21 to the base sections 20
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013