Appeal No. 1999-0113 Page 4
Application No. 08/472,321
Rejection 1
Dubach discloses an exercise device comprising a tensile element (2) consisting of an
endless rubber cord or rubber-elastic cable (column 2, lines 15-16) and rings or hand grips (1)
consisting of "elastic plastic material or rubber" (column 2, lines 11-14), with the rings being
connected to the tensile element at a detachable connection (3), which may be achieved by tying
or looping the tensile element about the ring. The examiner (answer, page 3) appears to
concede that Dubach differs from the claimed "exerciser" in that Dubach does not disclose that
the tensile element has a spring force which permits it to be stretched by the muscle force of a
person "to a length which exceeds at least 100% of its length at rest" but concludes that
manufacturing the tensile element of Dubach to have such a spring force would have been an
obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and that claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983). Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification. In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007