Appeal No. 2000-0526
Application No. 08/818,958
meaning can be ascribed to the terms in a claim, a
determination as to patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103
or under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting is not made. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,
862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962) and In re Wilson, 424 F.2d
1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). However, in this
instance, we consider it to be desirable to avoid the
inefficiency of piecemeal appellate review. See
Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537, 540 (Bd. App. 1984). For the
reasons outlined below, we interpret the appellant's method
claims 2, 3, 9 and 10 as being directed to a method for
sequestering gas from therapeutic fluid in a plungerless
syringe and injecting therapeutic fluid using the syringe. We
interpret claim 9 as further requiring that the body portion
of the plungerless syringe be provided with a wide central
portion tapering towards both the outlet and gas passageway.
Therefore, we have made a determination below as to the
patentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 and the doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting of method claims 2, 3, 9
and 10 in the interest of judicial economy.
Rejection (1)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007