A claim term may be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with its plain meaning when the specification does not place any restriction on its form or structure. Here, for example, a “timer” was found to encompass gears in the prior art that control a timing mechanism because the specification did not place any restriction on the form or structure that the claimed timer may take. “[C]laims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” It may therefore be best to provide at least an example and corresponding dependent claim for any terms having a plain meaning that may be interpreted more broadly than desired.
Background / Facts: The application on appeal here from rejection at the PTO is directed to resistance exercise machines such as leg extension machines found in many fitness centers. For example, with respect to leg extension machines, when a person is exercising on the machine, the exerciser will move the pad up to a certain point, and upon reaching that point, the pad will stop moving for a fixed period of time. The restriction of movement allows the user to work the muscles isometrically or by holding the weight in a fixed position. In this regard, the claims recite a “timer” that inhibits movement of the pad for an amount of time. The prior art discloses a variable resistance setup in which, when a user fails to continue moving the bar in a positive direction for “[a] preferred time threshold limit [of] about two seconds,” the system’s resistance mechanism gradually reduces the supplied resistance opposing the movement of the bar effectively to zero.
Issue(s): Whether the prior art nevertheless fails to anticipate the claimed “timer” because, to the extent there is a time delay in the prior art, it is caused by the movement of its gears, as opposed to a separate “timer.”
Holding(s): No. “[The patentee’s] contention that [the prior art] does not disclose a timer, because it fails to employ the term ‘timer’ is not persuasive. … The PTAB’s finding that the gears in [the prior art] may serve as a timer is correct. The [] Application recites a ‘timer,’ however, it does not place any restriction on the form or structure the timer may take. ‘[C]laims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’”