Appeal No. 2005-2197 Page 4
Application No. 10/751,432
other unrecited components may be present and still form a construct within the
scope of the claim. See, e.g., In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 802
(CCPA 1981). Consistent with this interpretation of "comprising," we determine that
appealed claim 23 requires as the recited components a vehicle frame coupleable
with a source of motive power and a conveyer centrally disposed and coupled with
the frame. Claim 23 also specifies that the vehicle frame and conveyer define the
receiving end and the discharge end. The claim further specifies that the discharge
end, i.e., the frame and conveyer, has a substantially fixed height. However, the
claimed hauler vehicle may also include any other unrecited components.
Claims 23, 26, 27 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Beck.1 We affirm.
According to the Examiner, Beck discloses a hauler vehicle that comprises a
frame, a source of motive power and a conveyer centrally disposed and coupled with
the frame. The Examiner also found that the hauler vehicle comprises a discharge
boom integrated into the vehicle frame. (Answer, pp. 3-4). As to claim 26, Beck
discloses a hopper 33 at the rear end of the hauler vehicle. This hopper is created
from the side walls which are flared outwardly. (Col. 1, ll. 41-44). Appellants have not
disputed the Examiner’s factual determinations. (See Briefs generally).
1 For this rejection, Appellants assert that the subject matter of claim 27 is patentable for the
same reasons as have been presented for claim 23 and the subject matter of claim 29 is patentable for the
same reasons as have been presented for claim 26. (Brief, pp. 12-13). Thus we will limit our discussion
to claims 23 and 26.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007