Appeal No. 1999-0368
Application 08/636,033
Concerning the requirement of claim 1 that the emergency
knuckle “has functioning parts which are substantially the
same as those of an AAR Standard knuckle, such that, when
installed, the knuckle can function like an existing AAR
Standard knuckle during the coupling and uncoupling
operations,” the examiner has taken the following position:
. . . The extremely broad language of the claim[]
only requires that the [claimed] knuckle . . . be
capable . . . of functioning like an existing AAR
standard knuckle . . . . Since one of the
requirements of an existing AAR standard knuckle is
to couple [and uncouple] cars . . . the Packer
reference can in fact function like an AAR standard
knuckle in this regard, because it too couples [and
uncouples] cars . . . and thus does “comprise” a
device which “can function like” an existing AAR
standard knuckle during the coupling [and
uncoupling] operation[s] . . . . While it may . . .
be true that the knuckle of Packer does not perform
all of the functions like an AAR standard knuckle .
. . this is irrelevant . . . as the claim[] only
require[s] that the knuckle . . . be capable of
performing “like” [an] AAR standard knuckle in some
manner . . . . The knuckle of Packer clearly does
this by coupling and uncoupling from cars which is
in fact a requirement for all AAR standard knuckles.
There is no recitation in the claim[] of how much
like an AAR standard knuckle the [claimed] knuckle .
. . must perform, nor is there any recitation of
which specific functions of an AAR standard knuckle
the [claimed] knuckle . . . must perform . . . .
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007