Appeal No. 2006-0028
Application No. 10/435,858
The appellant does not dispute that Jörg discloses type A or B
wing-in-ground craft of the sort recited in the claim, but does
contend that anticipation does not lie because Jörg “does not
disclose anything about the use of the vessel for moving ‘dangerous
goods’, nor does it disclose how one equips such a vessel to
accomplish the movement of ‘dangerous goods’” (brief, page 3).
This argument is unpersuasive as it is not commensurate with
the broad scope of the claim. More particularly, the claim does
not set forth any step of actually using the wing-in-ground craft
to move or haul dangerous goods. The only step recited in the
claim merely calls for an unspecified utilization of wing-in-ground
craft, types A or B, equipped to haul dangerous goods. This rather
broadly defined step reads on the disclosure by Jörg of the
utilization of wing-in-ground craft, presumably types A or B. The
appellant has not explained, and it is not evident, why the Jörg
wing-in-ground craft is not equipped to haul or carry dangerous
goods. Although the appellant submits that the claim requires the
craft to be so equipped in accordance with the relevant code and
regulations, the claim does not contain any limitation to this
effect. The appellant amended the claim during prosecution to
remove the recitation that the craft be equipped “pursuant to the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007