Toy plane with wings covered in aluminum foil

Variant question with a toy airplane with foil wing:

Applicant claims a toy plane whose wings are covered in aluminum foil. The spec describes a toy plane

whose wings are covered in foil but whose body isn’t. Reference discloses a plane that is covered entirely

in chewing gum wrapper, which includes aluminum foil and another material. Claim is rejected, and applicant

responds by arguing that covering only the wings in foil provides useful aerodynamic properties, and

therefore the claimed invention is distinguishable from the reference. How should the examiner respond?

I said the examiner should maintain the rejection b/c the claim is broad enough to include a plane

that is covered entirely in aluminum foil (limitations present in the spec will not be read into the claim

if not expressly recited A patent of a paper airplane with aluminum foil (I think) wings. The prior art is

a plane covered with aluminum I think. Is it patentable? similar to Oct 2003: PM 46 (airplane with foil

on wings, prior art has airplane covered completely in chewing gum wrapper)

I recently reviewed this answer at the PTO. Yes, the examiner should maintain the rejection

in view of practitioner’s arguments. The answer description points out that the claim is open-ended

(“…comprising wings covered in aluminum foil”). Thus, the prior art anticipates the claim.