Appeal No. 2002-1062 Page 5
Application No. 09/285,607
regarding the structure disclosed by Lorrance in claim 1 also are applicable to claim 3.
In addition, notwithstanding the appellants’ arguments to the contrary, it is our view that
Lorrance’s link rods 25 fall within the definition of a “peg” provided by the appellants on
page 5 of the Brief in that they are “fitted into something,” namely, the hole through
which they extend. It is not necessary, in our view, for a “peg” to be press (friction) fit
into the hole in which it is installed, which appears to be the thrust of the appellants’
argument on this issue, considering that the common applicable definition of “fit” or
“fitted” includes “suitable for,” “conform to,” and “to be accommodated,”2 none of which
require a press fit. In this regard, we point out that there is no language in claim 3 that
requires the peg to be pressed or even closely fitted into the hole.
As is the case in the claimed invention, the holes in the Lorrance mat do not
penetrate the top surface. We acknowledge that, as disclosed, the rods on the
Lorrance invention are operated in such a manner as to create depressions in the
upper surface of the mat adjacent the holes. Thus, the reference fails to disclose or
teach that the rods operate in such a manner that the upper surface of the mat is
deformed upwardly in the area adjacent the holes so as to create a protrusion.
The objects of the Lorrance invention include providing a game device having “a
variable elevation playing surface” (column 1, lines 56-57) and a game device and
“means for adjusting the elevation and curvature of its playing surface at any one or
2See, for example, Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973, page 434.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007