Appeal No. 2000-2128
Application No. 09/077,102
Claim 20 would therefore seem to distinguish over Bae, in
that it recites a “housing means . . . for servicing a rental
transaction therein” in part [a], and “computerized control
means operable for automated monitoring, commanding and
controlling
. . . vehicle renting . . . for scooter rentals and returns”
in part [c]. However, the examiner takes the position that
this language is “merely intended uses which are given very
little patentable weight,” and that Bae “is able to meet this
functional language as it could receive and service a battery
powered scooter” (final rejection, page 3). He also asserts
at page 4 of the answer that “[t]he battery exchange as
performed by Bae et al. may be part of a ‘rental
transaction.’”
We do not consider the examiner’s position to be well
taken. The language which the examiner characterizes as
“merely intended uses” constitutes recitations of the
functions of two means-plus-function elements of claim 20 (the
“housing means” and the “computerized control means”); it
therefore cannot be minimized or ignored, but rather, in order
to anticipate the claim, Bae must disclose structure capable
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007