Appeal No. 2005-1315 Παγε 6
Application No. 09/972,533
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 “said expanding means” in claims 39 and 40 as referring to
the combination of the ridge member and base member recited in claim 1 and “said
expanding means” in claims 49 and 50 as referring to the body recited in claim 45.
Therefore, we have made a determination below as to the rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) of the appealed claims in the interest of judicial economy based upon our
conclusion that the subject matter of these claims is anticipated by Fisher and by Smith.
Inasmuch as claim 1 recites the ridge member associated with the base member
as the structure which causes scleral expansion and claim 45 recites the body as the
structure which is “prescribed to expand” the sclera, we have interpreted the language
“said expanding means” in claims 39 and 40 as referring to the combination of the ridge
member and base member and in claims 49 and 50 as referring to the body. Further, in
light of the recitation of positive structure for performing the expanding function in claims
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007