Appeal No. 2000-1632
Application No. 09/055,308
Appellants argue (main brief, page 8) that Rumsey’s
turntable does not have a center equal to a rotational center of
the rotating member that is balanced by the apparatus. To the
extent this argument is understood, it is not persuasive. From
our perspective, Rumsey’s “turntable” (i.e., the casing and
inertia member considered collectively) has a “center” (central
axis of rotation) that coincides with the “center” (central axis
of rotation) of the member 18 that it balances.
Appellants argue (main brief, page 8) that if the pattern
shown in Figure 3 of Rumsey is repeated, an alternating ball and
sphere arrangement will not result. We do not agree with this
argument, primarily because we consider it to be based on an
erroneous interpretation of what Figure 3 of Rumsey depicts.
Appellants’ arguments in the reply brief concerning the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 10 also have been
considered, but are adequately addressed by our views as set
forth above.
In light of the foregoing, the anticipation rejection of
claims 1 and 10 is sustained. The anticipation rejection of
claim 2 is also sustained, since this claim has not been argued
apart from claim 1 from which it depends.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007