Appeal No. 2003-0503 9
Application No. 09/687,894
ballast members is capable of “directly attaching” to the cavity defined within the body
portion. In Gorczyca, weights 17 are either placed on the tray (see Figures 1, 2, 5 and 6)
or in the box (see Figure 4) suspended from the end of the line 13 (col. 5, lines 60-61).
Merely placing a weight on (or in) a support, as disclosed by Gorczyca, is not the same as
“directly attaching” a weight to a support as called for in appellant’s claim 15. The claim
limitation “directly attaching” requires the weight to be fastened or affixed to the support.
The loosely fitted or supported weights of Gorczyca are simply not secured to their
supports in the manner required by the claim. The circumstance that Gorczyca’s tray-like
supports (Figures 1, 2, 5 and 6) include rims 24 and channels 29 for cooperating with the
weights to make it less likely that they will fall off the supports does not change our view in
this regard.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 15 as being anticipated by Gorczyca cannot be
sustained.
Summary
The rejection of claims 1 and 3-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 4 and 8-12 as being anticipated by Metz is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 3, 5-7, 13 and 14 as being unpatentable over Metz is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007