Appeal No. 2004-2335 Page 5
Application No. 09/867,495
In applying this guidance to claim 5, we believe that the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the appellant's specification of the claim limitation that the
second end of the elastic cord has means for securing the second end to a support is
that the means for securing1 is attached to the second end of the elastic cord, i.e., as
disclosed, the other (i.e., second) end of the bungi cord 2 is secured to a clasp 5 as
depicted in Figure 2. In our view, this interpretation does not read limitations from the
specification into the claim, but rather interprets the claim language as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art so as to be consistent with the specification.
In the rejection of claim 5 under appeal, the examiner found (answer, p. 3) that
Vasilopoulos taught an elastic cord 30 with a hook 50 at a first end and an alligator clip
92 at the second end. In view of the clasp 2 taught by Thurston, the examiner
determined (answer, pp. 3-4) that it would have been obvious to modify Vasilopoulos'
alligator clip to have a spring that is wound around a pivot and has a pair of arms, one
of the pair of arms engaging an outside surface of a first jaw of the alligator clip, and the
other of the pair of arms engaging an outside surface of a second jaw of the alligator
clip.
1 The structure of the means for securing is spelled out in detail in claim 5.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007