Appeal No. 98-1044
Application 08/126,336
disclosed by Schuman meets all of the limitations in claim 11
is well founded. In this regard, Schuman's rigid body 10
constitutes a nondeformable block having side surfaces into
which the inner thighs of a user may fit as recited in claim
11. Moreover, it is not apparent, nor have the appellants
cogently explained, why rigid body 10 is not capable, under
principles of inherency, of being used as an exercise
apparatus for relieving a patient's hip and back pain as set
forth in claim 11 whereby the patient can activate the
adductor muscles by pressing against the
side surfaces with the inner thighs with the patient's lower
legs beneath the knees being unconstrained.
The appellants' argument that the preamble of claim 11
("An exercise apparatus for relieving a patient's hip and back
pain") introduces bulk, size and rigidity limitations into the
claim which are lacking in Schuman (see pages 5 through 10 in
the main brief) is not persuasive. Simply put, this line of
argument runs counter to the principle that during patent
examination claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the underlying specification
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007