Appeal No. 2003-0503 5
Application No. 09/687,894
calling for the ballast member to be sized to create an interference fit (claims 1 and 10), or
direct attachment (claim 15), with some part of the material of the body portion that
defines the cavity therein. In our view, the examiner’s position to the contrary is simply not
reasonable.
In light of the above, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejection (2)
Claim 1 calls for a ballast member that is separate and distinct from the body
portion, receivable within the cavity of body portion, and sized to create an interference fit
with the cavity of the body portion. The examiner contends that the closure member 52 in
the Figures 14-16 embodiment of Metz meets these requirements. Appellant does not
appear to dispute the examiner’s position that closure member 52 of Metz is separate and
distinct from the balloon holder 50, and receivable within the cavity formed in the
underside of the balloon holder 50. Appellant also does not appear to dispute the
examiner’s position that closure member 52 is sized to create an interference fit with a wall
portion of the cavity of the balloon holder by virtue of the cooperation of pins 57 of the
closure member with bosses 56 of the balloon holder. Instead, appellant argues that the
examiner erred in the first instance in considering closure member 52 of Metz to be a
ballast member. More particularly, appellant argues that the examiner has
mischaracterized what is taught by Metz, that the examiner’s analysis of Metz is hindsight
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007