Appeal No. 2003-0503 7
Application No. 09/687,894
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that
may be afforded by the written description contained in appellant’s specification.5
This guidance from our reviewing court provides the basis upon which we can
agree the examiner that the “ballast member” terminology of claim 1 “reads on” the closure
member 52 of Metz. More particularly, while appellant’s arguments imply that the
specification provides a definition of the term “ballast,” appellant has not pointed out, and it
is not apparent to us, where such definition is to be found. Instead, appellant’s
specification states at the bottom of page 2 that the ballast member disclosed by appellant
“simply provides additional downforce or weight to the balloon weight 10.” In that the
closure member 52 of Metz necessarily has mass, it unquestionably provides at least
some additional downforce or weight to the balloon holder 50. Hence, closure member 52
of Metz inherently acts, at least to some degree, as a “ballast member” within the broad
meaning of that term as used by appellant. This is sufficient to anticipate claim 1,
notwithstanding appellant’s arguments to the contrary that Metz does not “teach” the
claimed invention.
For these reasons, we will sustain the examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1.
We also will sustain the examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 4 and 8-12, since
appellant has not argued these claims with any reasonable degree of specificity, thereby
allowing these claims to fall with claim 1. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1570, 2
5In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007