Appeal No. 2004-0875 Page 4
Application No. 09/728,975
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"). Thus, claim 1 does not exclude additional, unrecited
elements, such as another pair of side members 55 extending in a cantilevered
arrangement from the other side of the center space frame in Na’s bus frame. As
pointed out by the examiner, each pair of side members 55 extends from only one side
of the center space frame. Accordingly, either pair of side members 55, such as the
pair on the right side of Figure 1 alluded to by the examiner (answer, page 3), fully
responds structurally to the pair of longitudinal mainframe members recited in
appellants’ claim 1. In pointing to the right side of Figure 1, the examiner is not simply
ignoring the left side of Figure 1 or picking and choosing portions of the reference to
reach a conclusion of anticipation, as suggested by appellants in their reply brief.
Rather, the examiner (answer, page 4) correctly points out that the presence of
additional structure extending from the left side of Na’s center space frame does not
distinguish claim 1 from Na’s bus frame, given the open-ended language of claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007