Ex Parte Fargo et al - Page 6




                 Appeal No. 2004-0389                                                                                     Page 6                     
                 Application No. 09/853,339                                                                                                          


                          Each of the solid steel plates forming supplementary wall supports 21, shown in                                            
                 Figure 8 of Gschwendtner, comprises a steel sheet “presenting a continuous planar                                                   
                 exterior surface,” as called for in claim 1.  We note that claim 1 does not require that the                                        
                 steel sheet be free of passages or discontinuities but simply that it present a continuous                                          
                 planar exterior surface.  Gschwendtner’s solid steel plates forming wall supports 21                                                
                 clearly comprise portions which present continuous planar surfaces, such as the                                                     
                 portions above and below and between the passage openings 22, for example.3                                                         
                          Appellants may be correct that Figure 1 simply schematically shows an outside                                              
                 cover over the truss structure of Figure 2.  This, however, does not alter our view that                                            
                 the supplementary wall supports 21 of Figure 8 meet the limitations of claim 1 with                                                 
                 regard to the steel sheet module.  Moreover, it is immaterial that only the                                                         
                 supplementary wall support of Figure 8 is formed from a solid steel plate (see brief,                                               
                 page 6), as claim 1 does not preclude the presence of additional structure in the rise.4                                            
                          Appellants also argue that escalator drive machines have typically been located                                            
                 under landings, not along the rise, and that Gschwendtner lacks any showing of an                                                   

                          3 We recognize, as pointed out by appellants on page 7 of their brief, that the steel sheet                                
                 illustrated in appellants’ Figure 11 is not depicted as having any openings or passages therein.  We are                            
                 also aware that an important feature of appellants’ invention is that it is “a closed design that eliminates                        
                 the need for exterior cladding” (specification, page 2).  We also note that several embodiments of that                             
                 invention (see Figures 2-7, for example), do comprise openings in the stamped modules and are,                                      
                 nonetheless, presumably also considered to be “a closed design” inasmuch as appellants’ specification                               
                 does not single out the embodiment of Figure 11 as being the only “closed design” embodiment.                                       
                          4 Specifically, claim 1 recites that “said rise includes at least one module wherein the module                            
                 comprises a steel sheet.” The transitional terms  "comprises" and “includes” are inclusive or open-ended                            
                 and do not exclude additional, unrecited elements.  See In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795,                              
                 802 (CCPA 1981); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948)("comprising" leaves "the claim                                    
                 open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts").                                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007