Appeal No. 2001-2509
Application No. 08/603,331
argument advanced by appellant is that Ballantyne does not
disclose the claimed monolithic device since the device of
Ballantyne has a reinforcing wire in its interior. Appellant
accurately points out that Ballantyne indicates that the rubber
and reinforcement wire are molded together. In particular,
Ballantyne discloses that “[t]he implement consists of solid
rubber moulded about a reinforcement of suitable material”
(column 1, lines 14-16).
We agree with the examiner that the presence of
reinforcement wire in the device of Ballantyne does not
disqualify it as monolithic as the term “monolithic” is used in
appellant’s specification and defined in appellant’s Exhibit A.
First, appellant uses the term monolithic to describe a device
whose handle and blade are formed out of one, not separate
materials, but nowhere does appellant’s specification state or
suggest that the material of the device should be uniform
throughout its interior. Secondly, the second definition given
for “monolithic” in the dictionary of appellant’s Exhibit A and
the most pertinent here is “cast as a single piece”. Manifestly,
the device of Ballantyne is cast as a single piece, i.e., the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007