Step for crossing

23. Applicant files a claim which includes the following limitation: “a step for crossing the

road.” The specification recites the following acts: “(1) go to the curb, (2) look both ways, (3) if

the road appears safe, walk across the road, (4) step up onto the far curb, (5) continue walking.”

The primary examiner properly construes the step limitation to cover the foregoing acts. A prior

art reference, published two years before the application was filed, expressly describes acts

(1)-(4), but not (5). This same reference also discloses the remaining limitations recited in

applicant’s claim, i.e., those other than the step plus function limitation. The examiner rejects

the claim under 35 USC 102(b) as being anticipated by the prior art reference. In accordance

with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following is the

most complete reply to overcome the rejection under these circumstances?

(A) An argument explaining that since act (5) is not disclosed in the reference, it does

not anticipate the claim.

(B) An amendment to the specification deleting act (5) – continue walking.

(C) An argument showing that neither the equivalent of act (5) nor act (5) is disclosed

in the reference, which therefore does not anticipate the claim.

(D) An amendment to the claim by adding a negative limitation to expressly exclude

act (5) from crossing the road.

(E) (B) and (D).