Appeal No. 2003-0360 Page 8
Application No. 09/264,398
is of no consequence because all of the subject matter recited in claim 20 “reads on”
Burland’s Figure 6. With regard to the argument concerning the drawbar, claim 20
states that the strut has longitudinal struts “adapted to receive a drawbar” (emphasis
added). It is our view that even if T-shaped element 44 is for argument’s sake not
considered to be a “drawbar,” the slots in the strut are nevertheless appear to be
“adapted,” that is, capable of, receiving a drawbar. As for the “longitudinal projecting
portion,” the claim does not require that it protrude downwardly, as argued by the
appellant, but only that the streamlined outer configuration be “broken at the underside”
by a “longitudinally” projecting portion, which clearly is the case in Burland at 47 and 52.
This rejection of claim 20 is sustained. Since the appellant has chosen not to
argue the separate patentability of dependent claims 21-32, which depend from claim
20, the rejection of those claims also is sustained.
The only argument advanced by the appellant with regard to independent claim
34 is that the longitudinal slot is not disclosed as receiving a drawbar. However, as we
concluded above with regard to claim 20, the slot is Burland appears to be capable of
receiving a drawbar, and therefore the reference meets the “adapted to receive”
requirement of the claim. This rejection of claim 34 is sustained.
Claim 33 stands rejected as being anticipated by Duemmler. The first argument
advanced by the appellant with regard to this rejection is that Duemmler does not
disclose longitudinal slots adapted to receive a drawbar, in that the slots in Duemmler
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007