Appeal No. 98-2771
Application 08/428,863
Reference is made to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 20,
mailed July 21, 1997) and supplemental examiner’s letters
(Paper Nos. 22 and 24) for the examiner's reasoning in support
of the above-noted rejections and to the appeal brief (Paper
No. 19, filed April 25, 1997), reply brief (Paper No. 21,
filed September 29, 1997) and letter (Paper No. 23) for
appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in this
appeal has included a careful assessment of appellant’s
specification and claims, the applied prior art references,
and the respective positions advanced by appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have come to the
conclusions which follow.
With regard to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 3, 7 through 10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Morozov in view of Oaks, appellant has argued (brief, pages 5-
6) that the device shown in Morozov is not an exercise board,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007