Appeal No. 2004-1315
Application No. 09/815,191
[144] and furthermore incorporated within its edge a
support hinge member [140a] of a predetermined length,
height and inside diameter and
b. furthermore rotating within the support hinge
member [140a] a snowboard brake assembly [12]
consisting of a single irregular angled shaped lever
arm member therefore [90] having a predetermined
number of legs-section of various lengths and
furthermore disclosing a pre-stressed torsion spring
member [190] located about one leg-section and
c. whereby the torsion spring [190] communicating
with the lever arm member [90] providing means of a
mechanical transmission for snowboard braking.
As discussed, supra, the examiner has explained (and we
agree) how Klubitschko suggests components a, b, and c, as
recited in claim 7. With regard to the claimed torsion spring,
the examiner’s position is set forth on pages 3-5 of the answer.
Beginning on page 24 of the brief, appellant argues that
the applied art does not teach or suggest his claimed torsion
spring. Again, the limitations that appellant argues are not
claimed. Claim 7 requires “a pre-stressed torsion spring member
[190] located about one leg-section”. This spring communicates
with lever arm [90]. We note that during patent examination,
the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
320, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, on page 24 of the brief, while
appellant argues (1) certain structural limitations (such as
shape) regarding the torsion spring and (2) how the spring is
positioned relative to other components (such as legs/arms), the
aforementioned claim language does not require such limitations.
We therefore agree with the examiner’s explanation of pre-
stressed torsion spring 35 of Renaud-Goud as set forth on page 4
of the answer, and the examiner’s rebuttal made on page 7 of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007