Appeal No. 2001-2371
Application 09/318,259
not exclude the holes (blow-out openings 4) in the Japanese
casing (filter case 2) which are positioned other than near
the partition for the first chamber and at the middle of the
casing for the second chamber.
A fair reading of the appellant’s specification and
claims, however, refutes all aspects of the examiner’s
position.
To begin with, although the scope of a claim containing
an open transition phrase such as “comprising” may cover
subject matter having additional unrecited elements (see AFG
Industries Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 239 F.3d 1239, 1244, 57
USPQ2d 1776, 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2001)), claim 7, read in context
and in light of the specification, does exclude the holes in
the Japanese casing which admittedly are not positioned near
the partition for the first chamber and at the middle of the
casing for the second chamber. In addition to including the
restrictive term “only” to define the holes and their
position, claim 7 requires the holes recited therein to
inflate the airbag equally, or as equal as possible, in the
longitudinal direction of the casing. As discussed in the
appellant’s specification (see pages 1 and 2), in an account
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007