Appeal 2007-2069
Application 10/723,000
swinging the rider’s right leg over the horse so that the rider is
seated in the saddle.
Appellant has not argued the patentability of any of the dependent
claims separately from the independent claims. Rather, Appellant argues
that one limitation critical to the invention defined by independent Claims 1,
8, and 18 patentably distinguishes the subject matter defined by its claims
from the subject matter described by Seal (Corrected Brief On Appeal, dated
April 12, 2006 (Br. 3-10)). That one limitation defines the auxiliary stirrup
as hanging downwardly from the seat of the saddle at a location below and
“behind . . . the primary stirrup” (Br. App’x Claims 1 and 8) so that the
rider’s left foot may be placed into the primary riding stirrup when the right
foot is in the auxiliary mounting stirrup without crossing legs (Br. App’x
Claim 18). At minimum then, we conclude that every dependent claim on
appeal stands or falls with the claim upon which it depends. Accordingly,
we need consider only the patentability of Claims 1, 8, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Seal’s disclosure. 37 CFR § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii).
Discussion
1. Claim interpretation
“In proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). In that light we conclude first that the “auxiliary saddle stirrup”
of Claim 1 comprises “a strap having an upper end and a lower end” with the
upper end being attachable to the saddle and the lower end of the strap
having a foot loop. The phrases "being attachable to the saddle" and "so as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013