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 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007