Appeal No. 97-4056 Page 7
Application No. 08/238,926
the canal or waterway 7); said second opening placed
substantially in said open sea area (see Parker's Figure 2 which
shows that the canal or waterway 7 has an inlet opening placed in
the sea area); and said first and second opening being in fluid
communication to permit flow of water through said conduit
(Parker's canal or waterway 7 permits flow of water from the
inlet opening to the outlet opening at the harbor end of the
canal or waterway 7).
The appellant's argument (supplemental brief, page 18, and
brief, pages 31-32) that appellant's invention resides in the
removal of a critical and massive structure (i.e., Parker's head-
producing mechanism 8) is unpersuasive for the following reason.
Claim 20 is drafted utilizing the transitional phrase
"comprising." Therefore, claim 20 is open-ended and does not
exclude additional, unrecited elements such as Parker's head-
producing mechanism 8.
Since each and every element as set forth in claim 20 is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in Parker, we
sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007