Ex Parte Warecki - Page 5




              Appeal No. 2005-1411                                                                  Page 5                
              Application No. 10/340,772                                                                                  


              “comprising,” does not exclude the presence of additional unrecited elements.3                              
                     The appellant also argues that Ewald does not disclose the ranges of thickness,                      
              width, depth and length recited in claim 1.  The following quotation from In re Woodruff,                   
              919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), is applicable here:                          
                                   The law is replete with cases in which the difference                                  
                            between the claimed invention and the prior art is some                                       
                            range or other variable within the claims.  [citations omitted]                               
                            These cases have consistently held that in such a situation,                                  
                            the applicant must show that the particular range is critical,                                
                            generally by showing that the claimed range achieves                                          
                            unexpected results relative to the prior art range.                                           
              Ewald discloses that the sheet is cut to whatever size is required to form bottom and                       
              side walls of desired length, width and height.  In this case, the appellant has not come                   
              forth with any explanation, much less evidence, showing that the claimed ranges of                          
              thickness, width, depth and length achieve unexpected results relative to the tank of                       
              Ewald so as to establish a patentable distinction between Ewald and the subject matter                      
              of claim 1.                                                                                                 
                     For the foregoing reasons, the appellant’s argument is not persuasive of any                         
              error on the part of the examiner in rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable over Ewald.                    
              Thus, the rejection of claim 1, as well as claim 6 which the appellant has not argued                       
              separately apart from claim 1  (see In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089,                         


                     3 The transitional term "comprising" is inclusive or open-ended and does 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  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007