Appeal No. 2005-1953 Page 8
Application No. 09/765,533
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by Appellant and the
Examiner, we affirm for the reasons advanced by the Examiner and add the following
primarily for emphasis.
Our initial inquiry is directed to the scope of the claimed subject matter. During
patent prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and the claim language is to be read in view of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190
USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976).
In the present case, Appellant explains that mats can be used in types of yoga,
including Hatha Yoga. Appellant describes the simplest form of yoga as “moving
one's body in seven possible one-movement directions and in varying combinations of
those movements.” (Specification, p. 1). Appellant discloses that the invention is
directed to a universally useable yoga mat which aids the practitioner in properly
aligning himself or herself in various poses and which allows the practitioner to
determine his or her flexibility.” (Specification, p. 3).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007