Appeal No. 2004-1016
Application No. 10/174,567
Webster’s Dictionary defines “include” as to take in or
comprise as part of a whole, to contain between or
within. Webster’s Dictionary further defines “include”
to mean to contain within as part of a whole,
suggesting the containment of something as constituent,
component, or subordinate part of a larger whole.
We are not persuaded by this argument. The appellants may be
their own lexicographer and may define the claimed movable grill
as a shuttle plate 18 per se or a combination of a shuttle plate
18 and a handle 14 (movable grill including a projecting
actuator). However, this is merely a matter of semantics. That
is, the claims on appeal, by virtue of selecting one definition
over another, do not distinguish the structure of the claimed
adjustable air vent from that of Dunlap’s adjustable air vent in
that they both require a handle (a projecting actuator) to be
attached to a shuttle plate (a moveable grill).
The appellants separately argue that the limitations of
claims 3, 5 and 6 are not taught in Dunlap. We are not persuaded
by this argument for the findings of fact set forth at page 3, 4,
7 and 8 of the Answer. We adopt the examiner’s factual findings
set forth in the Answer as our own.
It follows that Dunlap teaches each and every limitation of
claims 1 through 3, 5 and 6 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). Hence, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1 through 3, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007