Appeal No. 1998-2383 Page 10
Application No. 08/116,355
With regard to claims 39 and 40, which depend from claim 35, however, we find no
teaching or suggestion in any of the references applied by the examiner in rejecting these claims
to attach the stationary end of the resilient stretchable element either adjacent the knee of the
kneeling leg (claim 39) or to the foot of the kneeling leg (claim 40). As to claim 56, which also
depends from independent claim 35, the additional steps of extending the moving leg to
substantially full length and arcuately swinging the foot of the extended leg are not taught or
suggested by Tee or the other applied references, Holappa, Chellis and Richardson, either
alone or in combination. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims
39, 40 and 56.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand the application to the examiner for consideration of the following issues:
1. With regard to claim 41, and all claims depending therefrom, we note that U.S. Patent
No. 4, 815,731, issued to Suarez et al. (Suarez) on March 28, 1989, discloses, in Figure 1, a
method wherein the cuffs (3) of an exercise device, also comprising an intervening coil spring
(4) and elastic cord (5), are placed around the ankles of a user. The user moves the limbs
away from each other to cause the spring (4) to stretch, thereby providing resistance to the
outward movement of the limbs (column 3, lines 31-36). Further, it appears to us that the user
illustrated in Figure 1 is lying on her side. The method of Suarez differs from the method of
claim 41 in that the cuffs are not attached to the foot of the user. The application is remanded
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007