Ex parte Hauber

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 24, 1998

08077380 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 24, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 17, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte FREDERICK A. HAUBER
__________
Appeal No. 96-4117
Application 08/077,3801
__________
REHEARING
__________
Before MEISTER, ABRAMS, PATE, III, Administrative Patent
Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
This case comes before us on request for rehearing of our
decision of March 31, 1998. It is the appellant’s contention
that we erred in sustaining the examiner’s rejection of claims
Appeal No. 96-4117
Application No. 08/077,380
The examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9 and 10 was not2
sustained.
2
8, 11, 13 and 14 as being anticipated by Cohen, After2
careful consideration of the arguments presented by the
appellant in the request, we have concluded that our decision
is sound, and we shall not modify it.
The appellant’s first argument is that the lens system
disclosed in Figure 7 of Cohen requires two lenses to achieve
correction of chromatic aberration, whereas the claimed
invention requires only one. The appellant bases this
conclusion upon Cohen’s “detailed explanation (columns 1, 2
and 3)” (Request, page 2). However, the appellant has not
pointed out where in these three columns of text the basis for
this conclusion is found, and such is not apparent to us. Nor
has the appellant directed us to evidence which would support
of such a conclusion. As we understand the appellant’s
second argument, it is that the lens surface having the
diffractive pattern in Cohen’s Figure 7 “PL” lens, which
formed the basis of the rejection, is not “intraocular”
because it is not on an exterior surface of the lens (Request,
page 3). However, the common definition of intraocular is
Appeal No. 96-4117
Application No. 08/077,380
See, for example, Webster’s Third New International3
Dictionary, 1971, page 1186.
3
“within the eyeball,” a condition which clearly is met by all3
of the elements of the Figure 7 lens, whether located on the
outer surfaces of the lens or in the interior. Therefore,
this argument is more narrow than the language of the claim,
and is not persuasive. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348,
213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
The appellant also argues that “the Board’s
holding...[that] the PL lens alone should cure chromatic
aberration” goes against the purpose defined in the Cohen
reference (Request, pages 3 and 4). First of all, we made no
such “holding” in our decision. Second, the claim requires
that the lens have a pattern “correcting” chromatic
aberration, and not that it “cure” chromatic aberration. It
is our view that the diffractive pattern on the Cohen PL lens
accomplishes the specified function to the extent necessary to
meet the terms of the claim. No evidence has been brought to
our attention which mandates the opposite conclusion.
We therefore have granted the appellant’s request to the
extent that we have considered our decision in the light of
Appeal No. 96-4117
Application No. 08/077,380
4
the
arguments presented in the request, but it is denied insofar
as altering that decision is concerned.
DENIED
James M. Meister )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Neal E. Abrams ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
William F. Pate, III )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-4117
Application No. 08/077,380
5
James C. Wray
1493 Chain Bridge Road
Suite 300
McLean, VA 22101