Appeal No. 96-1963
Application 08/094,296
Buys et al. (Buys) 5,336,217 Aug. 09, 1994
(Filed Jun. 05, 1992)
Keeler Ophthalmic, Inc. Brochure of Ophthalmoscopes, pp 1-11, (no
date). (Keeler)
Metalaser Technologies, Inc. “CVL Network News” Bulletin, Spring
1992, pp 1-8. (Metalaser)
The claims on appeal stand finally rejected under 35
USC § 103 as unpatentable over the following combinations of
references:
(1) Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 13 to 16, 18, 28, 30 and 32 to 35,
Buys in view of Taboada and Keeler;
(2) Claims 2 and 31, Buys in view of Taboada, Keeler and
Sutton;
(3) Claim 5, Buys in view of Taboada, Keeler and Metalaser.
We will first consider the rejection of claim 1, particu-
larly in relation to parts [iv] and [v] thereof. Each of these
parts calls for a means plus function, and therefore must be
interpreted as covering “the corresponding structure . . . .
described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 USC
§ 112, sixth paragraph; In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189,
1193, 29 USPQ 2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Part [iv] of claim 1 recites a “means in said projecting
means for focusing said [laser] beam at selected locations in
said area . . . . ”. In appellants’ specification, the means for
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007