Appeal No. 1998-2768
Application No. 08/520,802
recited in the claim are each isometric exercise routines,
that the monitored “exercise activities of the individual” are
the actual isometric exercises performed by the patient
against the restraint of the orthopedic restraining device,
and that such activities define the “actual exercise routine”
referred to in clause (d) of the claim. In contrast to the
examiner’s position, we do not view the recitation of
isometric exercises in the preamble of appellants’ claim 41 to
be merely a statement of intended use, but instead we view
this recitation as providing a limitation on the claimed
subject
matter as a whole, i.e., that the method of claim 41 is
expressly limited to a method of optimizing “isometric
exercise” and that the body of the claim must be read in this
light, and thus as being limited to a target isometric
exercise routine and actual
isometric exercise activities which constitute the actual
isometric exercise routine.
Like appellants, we note that while the orthopedic
apparatus of Airy may be locked so as to be utilized as a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007