Appeal 2007-1199
Application 10/124,648
diameter and at least one pair of footplates (32B) separated by a haptic (26B)
and attached to the optic (22) by a ramp (44). (Answer 3: 16-18).
8. The Examiner determined that the ramp of Nigam’s Figure 10
is wider in the optic plane than it is in a plane perpendicular to the optic
plane. (Answer 3-4).
9. The Examiner determined that the ratio of haptic spread to optic
diameter for the lens shown in Nigam’s Figure 10 is less than 1.5 and 1.3.
(Answer 4: 8-9).
10. The Examiner determined that Nigam’s lens is made of soft
acrylic, silicones, or hydrogels. (Answer 4: 5-6).
11. With regard to the force response claim limitation, the
Examiner concluded that Nigam’s lens will react in the same manner as does
the Applicants’ claimed lens because the two have a common structure and
use the same material. (Answer 4: 3-6 and 9-10).
E. Principles of law
For determining patentability over prior art, the name of the game is
the claim. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529
(Fed. Cir. 1998).
To establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every
element in a claim, arranged as is recited in the claim, must be found in a
single prior art reference. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242
F.3d 1376, 1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Anticipation can
be found when a claim limitation is inherent or otherwise implicit in the
relevant reference. Standard Havens Products, Inc. v. Gencor Industries,
Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369, 21 USPQ2d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1991). For
establishing inherency, that which is missing in the express description must
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013