Appeal No. 2000-1632
Application No. 09/055,308
Concerning the examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims
1 and 10 based on Rumsey, appellants argue (main brief, page 6)
that the bearing tracks 35, 36 of Rumsey are not along the
circumference of the vibration damper because they are not
located at the outer boundary of the vibration damper assembly.
For the following reasons, this argument is not well taken.
First, claims 1 and 10 do not require the groove in which the
balls are disposed to be formed along the circumference of the
overall apparatus, as appellants imply, but rather along the
circumference of “a turntable,” which turntable may merely be a
component of the overall apparatus. Second, while we appreciate
that the definitions of the words “circumference” and “boundary”
cited by appellants on page 6 of the main brief indicates that
“circumference” may mean the external or outmost boundary or
surface of a figure or object, we observe that other broader
definitions of “circumference” and “boundary” also can be found2
that support the examiner’s position that the bearing tracks of
2See, for example, the American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language, 3 edition, copyright © 1992, wherein therd
noun “circumference” may mean “the boundary of a circle” or
“the boundary line of a figure, area, or object,” and the noun
“boundary” may mean “something that indicates a border or
limit.”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007