Appeal No. 2005-1315 Παγε 4
Application No. 09/972,533
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
The basis of the examiner’s rejection is that it is unclear whether “said expanding
means” in claims 39, 40, 49 and 50, which lacks antecedent basis in the claims, refers
to the “ridge member” or “ridge member in association with the base member” (answer,
page 4). The appellant contends, on page 7 of the brief, that the words “expanding
means” in claims 39 and 40 refer to the text in the last line of claim 1 that reads “a ridge
member associated with said base member that applies force to said pocket to thereby
cause scleral expansion” and that the words “expanding means” in claims 49 and 50
refer to the text in claim 45 that reads “a body having an elongated base with a first end
and a second end, said body having a shape prescribed to expand said sclera.”
filing and acceptance of a terminal disclaimer and power of attorney (see page 3 of the answer).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007