Appeal 2007-1199
Application 10/124,648
apparent and it has not been articulated by the Applicants what structural
feature disclosed in their Specification as necessary to achieve the lower
reactive force is not embodied in Nigam’s lens. According to the
Specification, although it is not claimed, the ratio of haptic spread to optic
diameter should be less than 1.5 and 1.3. The Examiner determined that
Nigam’s lens exhibits such a ratio and that determination has not been
specifically challenged by the Applicants. When a prima facie case of
anticipation has been established based on inherency, the burden shifts to the
Applicants to prove that the subject matter in the prior art does not possess
the characteristics relied on. In re King, 801 F.2d at 1327, 231 USPQ at
138.
As for the merits of the dependent claims, it is noted that the
Applicants represent that the dependent claims are not separately patentable.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Nigam is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
LP
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013