Appeal No. 2004-2161 Page 4
Application No. 10/028,875
“attached to” second body 170 by virtue of end 182, which snapped over transverse bar
portion 183 of second body 170, as is asserted by the examiner on page 4 of the
Answer. However, in this case we do not agree with the appellants.
In accordance with the common definition of the term, which was provided by the
appellants on page 7 of the Brief, “attached” means fastened, secured, or joined to
another object. In the Beals arrangement shown in Figures 24 and 24A, bendable
piece 180 comprises integrally formed sections 182, 186, 188 and 190. Portion 182 of
piece 180 clearly is directly attached to second body 170 by virtue of being snapped
into an opening in transverse bar 183 (column 9, line 34 et seq.). Sections 186, 188
and 190 (which the examiner has found to constitute the claimed “first section”) are
integral with portion 182, and therefore it is our view that they also are “attached to”
second body 170, albeit not directly. Claim 1 is cast in “comprising” format2 and does
not require that the first section of the bendable piece of material be directly attached to
the second body. It is our opinion that section 190 of Beals thus meets the “attached
to” limitation of the claim. We are not persuaded otherwise by the appellants’ argument
that this is an inappropriate definition of “attached,” which appears to be based upon
the premise that claim 1 requires the first section to be directly attached to the second
body (Reply Brief, page 2). It is true that in the embodiment of the invention disclosed
2It is well settled the use of the term "comprising" in a claim opens the claim to inclusion of
elements or steps other than those recited in the claim. See, for example, In re Hunter, 288 F.2d 930,
932, 129 USPQ 225, 226 (CCPA 1961).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007