Appeal No. 2003-0360 Page 9
Application No. 09/264,398
receive a supporting jaw, a clamping screw bolt and a claw, which do not constitute a
drawbar (Brief, page 8). We find this argument not to be persuasive because, in our
view, the slots are “adapted to receive a drawbar,” that is, they are capable of receiving
a drawbar, which is all the claim requires.
The second argument posed by the appellant is that Duemmler does not
disclose the required lower projecting portion that protrudes downwardly beyond the
contour line (Brief, page 8). Again, we do not agree. Claim 33 recites two elements
having a “substantially rectangular cross-sectional configuration.” The first of these is
upper of the two rectangular elements shown in Figure 2, which is delineated “at least
partially” by the outer contour of the outer top and side surfaces of the portion of the
strut that defines internal slot 16. The upper rectangular element terminates at the top
of the hollow opening delineated by the numeral 2. Extending downwardly from this
point is a second element of substantially rectangular cross-sectional configuration,
which has a lower portion protruding downwardly beyond the contour line that defines
the upper rectangular portion, with the underside of the lower portion being configured
to cooperate with support surfaces.
On the basis of this reading of the claim language on the Duemmler strut it is our
conclusion that the subject matter recited in claim 33 is anticipated by Duemmler. This
being the case, we will sustain this rejection of claim 33.
The Rejections Under Section 103
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007