Appeal No. 97-2644
Application 08/381,531
be "long enough to extend through a minimum of more than two
coupling eyelets" (page 1, lines 32-33) and/or have a length
that "is selected in such a manner that they always extend
through more than two adjacent ones of the coupling eyelets 10
and 11" (page 3, lines 17-19). With this as guidance, we
look to the language of independent claim 1 on appeal to
understand its metes and bounds.
As noted above, the first clause of appellant's
claim 1 sets forth a plurality of core elements, and then
defines those elements as each "being rigid, and having a
cylindrical shape extending along its length measured between
opposite ends thereof." We understand this claim language, in
light of appellant's disclosure, to require that each of the
core elements have a cylindrical shape over the entire length
of the core element measured from end-to-end, for example, as
seen in appellant's drawing Figures 1 and 2. This clause of
claim 1 also sets forth
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007