Appeal No. 1999-0113 Page 6
Application No. 08/472,321
resilient elements having relatively higher degrees of elongation within the broader scope of her
invention.
It is apparent from Dubach's characterization of the elements (2) as "tensile" elements2
and the arrows shown in Figures 6-14 of Dubach that the tensile elements are intended to be
stretched to some degree by the muscle force of a person when the hand or foot is received in
the ring. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that one of ordinary skill in the exercising art
would have understood the tensile element (2) of Dubach to be stretchable by the muscle force
of a person so as to extend to an extended length which exceeds the length of the element at
rest, thereby meeting the broad spring force limitation of claim 5.
Moreover, we hasten to add that we agree with the examiner that the degree of resiliency and
range of stretch ability would have been an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art to
be determined depending on the particular types of exercises to be performed and the desired level of
difficulty. For example, one of ordinary skill in the exercising art would have understood that a tensile
element having a high degree of resiliency and a wide range of extensibility would be required to permit
"dynamic uses for improving the circulation and endurance" as contemplated by Dubach (column 3, line
47, to column 4, line 2). Therefore, even if the appellant's claim were interpreted as requiring the
stretchable resilient element to have a spring force which permits it to be stretched by the muscle force
2The term "tensile" is ordinarily defined as "capable of being stretched" (Webster's New World
Dictionary, Third College Edition (Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1988)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007