Appeal No. 1999-0113 Page 5
Application No. 08/472,321
Having reviewed the language of claim 5 and the entirety of the appellant's disclosure,
we cannot agree with the interpretation (i.e., as requiring an extended length at least double its
length at rest) accorded claim 5 in our colleague's concurring opinion. Turning first to the
language of claim 5, we observe that the spring force limitation therein merely requires that the
resilient stretchable element be stretchable by the muscle force of a person "so as to extend to a
length which exceeds at least 100% of its length at rest." As we see it, any degree of extension
or stretch of the tensile element, no matter how small, from its length at rest constitutes a
stretching "to a length which exceeds at least 100% of its length at rest" as this language would
ordinarily be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In describing the spring force of
the resilient element, the appellant's specification (page 6, lines 21-26, and page 31, lines 1-4)
uses the same language found in claim 5, with a preferable range of extension as recited in
dependent claim 6. While we have carefully considered, for example, the language in the
appellant's specification on page 31, in lines 5-20, regarding fluidity of motion, elimination of
jarring and reference to "tighter springs with heavier spring forces and lesser degrees of
elongation" and the drawings (Figures 4M and 5E) referenced in the concurring opinion, we
find nothing therein which convinces us that the appellant has limited the scope of her invention
to exercisers having resilient elements which are capable of stretching, at a minimum, to double
their length at rest, as opposed to, for example, merely pointing out the advantages of using
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007