Appeal No. 2003-1359 6
Application No. 09/285,260
In the present instance, the emphasized terminology in the above quoted portions
of claims 1 and 24 requires interpretation. Consistent with appellants’ specification4, we
consider that the broadest reasonable interpretation one of ordinary skill in the art would
give to the “changing the spring rigidity” and “changing its bending resistance” terminology
of claim 1 and the “changing the bending resistance” terminology of claim 24 is that this
terminology requires a physical change in the forefoot leaf spring that effects a change in
the characteristic resistance to bending of the leaf spring.5 This interpretation comports
with appellants’ argument on page 7 of the main brief and page 3 of the reply brief
concerning these claim limitations.
The anticipation rejection based on Robinson
In attempting to read claims 1 and 24 on the prosthetic foot of Robinson, the
examiner has taken the position (answer, page 3) that elements 78 and 14 of Robinson
correspond to the claimed first spring element, that element 58 of Robinson corresponds to
the claimed second spring element, and that element 12 of Robinson corresponds to the
“adapting device” of claim 1 and the “means . . . for changing” of claim 24. It is not
entirely clear from the examiner’s explanation of the rejection in the answer how the
4See, for example, page 5, lines 3-9; page 6, lines 20-24; page 7, lines 5-12;
and, page 9, lines 18-19.
5We note that the examiner has not provided an alternative interpretation of the
terminology in question.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007