Appeal No. 98-1204
Application No. 08/609,551
on it, for it meets the claim requirement that the curve be in
a direction “horizontally transverse to [its] direction of
elongation” (emphasis added) if it is reoriented by rotating
it ninety degrees. Although the appellants argue that such is
improper, that it not the case. The disclosure of the
appellants’ invention informs us that the inventive spreader
bar is to be used in conjunction with the body supporting
element of a hammock. However, claim 1 is more broad, in that
it is directed only to a “spreader bar.” The claim contains
no language that relates the orientation of the spreader bar
to other structures, much less to the body supporting portion
of the hammock, and therefore it is simply a free article, the
orientation of which is not restricted by its relationship to
another element.
It therefore is our conclusion that the subject matter
recited in claim 1 is anticipated by Nickerson, and we will
sustain this rejection. In view of the fact that the
appellants have elected not to challenge with any reasonable
specificity before this Board the rejection of dependent
claims 4, 6 and 7, they are grouped with independent claim 1,
from which they depend, and fall therewith. See In re
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007