Appeal No. 2004-0967 Page 4
Application No. 10/145,031
§ 2163(I)(B)), and it is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood the meaning of these terms from the description of the invention found in
the specification. From the explanation beginning on page 9 it is clear that, with respect
to the embodiment shown in Figures 2-4, spring 12 must be so designed as not to
compress when the board that is pulled by the device has been uncoupled from the
connectors, but to compress if the board that is pulled remains coupled to the
connectors, thus providing an indication of the existence of the coupled condition. With
regard to the embodiment shown in Figure 7, it is the tensile strength that is oriented to
achieve the same results. In describing these phenomena, the terms used in the
specification are “force” and “stiffness” (see, for example, page 9, line 22 et seq.), and
we note here that the common applicable definition of “force” is “strength or energy
exerted or brought to bear” and, with regard to mechanisms, “stiffness” is “impeded in
movement.”2
From our perspective, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from
the specification that the “compression stiffness” and “tensile stiffness” recited in the
claims describes the level of force that must be applied to the elastic body to overcome
its design strength in compression or tension, that is, its impediment or resistance to
movement. This being the case, the disputed phrases are supported by the disclosure
as originally filed, and the claims comply with the first paragraph of Section 112.
2See, for example, Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973, pages 449 and 1142.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007