Appeal No. 1999-0172
Application 08/334,733
does not respond to the various method steps in claims 10 and
27 which require performance in a freight yard. Accordingly,
we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claims 10 and 27, or of claims 11 and 28 through 31 which
depend therefrom, as being anticipated by Mansell.
Claim 1, on the other hand, mentions the “freight yard”
only in the functional context of describing the intended use
of various components of the claimed system. In other words,
claim 1 does not recite the “freight yard” as a positive
element of the claimed system. It is not apparent, nor have
the appellants cogently explained, why the system disclosed by
Mansell would not be inherently capable of use in a freight
yard. Thus, Mansell meets the functional limitations in
question under principles of inherency. Hence, the
appellants’ position that the subject matter recited in claim
1 is not anticipated by Mansell is unpersuasive.
Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) rejection of claim 1, and of dependent claims 2, 3 and
5 through 9 which are grouped therewith for purposes of this
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007