Appeal No. 2004-0825
Application 09/954,786
pure bismuth” (lines 65-66 in column 1) for forming these
devices.
For the reasons set forth above and for the reasons
expressed by the examiner, we find that claim 20 is anticipated
by Brown. Therefore, the examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 20
as being anticipated by Brown is hereby sustained.
As for claim 21, we share the examiner’s finding that
Brown discloses a fishing device such as a sinker made from an
alloy of bismuth and tin wherein the alloy contains at least
about 50% by weight or more bismuth or at least about 60% by
weight or more bismuth (e.g., see the previously noted dis-
closures of the Brown patent as well as claims 1/8 and 1/9).
Like the examiner, we consider patentee’s teachings of these
alloys to anticipatorily satisfy the claim 21 requirement of a
eutectic alloy of bismuth and tin “wherein the amount of bismuth
is about 58% and the amount of tin is about 42%.” Additionally,
we consider the appellants’ use of the word “about” in the claim
phrase “the amount of bismuth is about 58%” to so broaden the
here claimed bismuth amount that it encompasses patentee’s
expressly disclosed bismuth amount of “about 60%” (see line 6
in column 2 and claim 1/9).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007