Appeal No. 98-0985 Page 12
Application No. 08/271,022
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 42, 43 and 72-74 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is affirmed.
Claims 49-52
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims
49-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 49 adds to parent claim 42 the addition limitation
that "said resistance is controlled by a microprocessor
program."
With regard to claim 49, the examiner states (answer, p.
6) that "Airy teaches the method of controlling the resistance
means by a microprocessor program (column 15 lines 13-20)."
The appellants argue (brief, p. 23) that the subject
matter of claim 49 is not taught by either Airy or Dalebout.
The appellants point out that controlling resistance to
movement with a microprocessor is not the same as taking data
with a microprocessor.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007