Appeal No. 2001-1792 Page 5
Application No. 09/291,716
as the construction of the device is concerned, the notch is illustrated as being no deeper
than the radius of the pin, no structure is provided to preclude the pin from being moved out
of the notch once positioned therein, and there is nothing but the weight of shaft 12, yoke
20 and the associated elements, and the bow itself to bias the pin into the notch.
Moreover, there is no explicit statement in the reference that the notch cannot be
overridden, and the manner in which the notch is illustrated in the drawings supports the
conclusion that this inherently would not be the case. Thus, the term “limiting” should not, in
our view, be interpreted as meaning “precluding,” for the bow is capable of being rotated in
a horizontal plane with respect to base 10. We also note that the appellant’s claim
language does not require that the support remain fixed in place while the bow is rotated,
and thus rotation of the entire Maxwell apparatus on base 10, which would appear to be
quite easily accomplished owing to the size and configuration of the base, would allow the
bow to have a second degree of rotative movement which is orthogonal to the first.
The rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Maxwell is sustained. In addition,
since the appellant has chosen not to separately argue the patentability of dependent
claims 4-6 and 8, they are grouped with claim 1, from which they depend, and fall
therewith.
The requirement added by claim 2 that the bow positioning mechanism provides
first and second mechanisms that allow the bow to be adjusted in two planes generally
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007