Appeal No. 95-2909
Application 08/048,270
being “a rather short light wooden pole with a broad fairly flat
blade at one end.”
Elements 4 of Hribar do not meet this definition. They are
described as “volumes . . . of the bladder type” (column 3, line
15) and are shown in the drawings (Figures 2 and 3) as
rectangular in plan view. We see no structure of the Hribar
“volumes” which would correspond to the pole (handle) and blade
of a paddle and be “suggestive in shape of a paddle.”
Moreover, we consider that the word “paddle,” at least in
this context, implies a structure that would include some type of
handle portion, this being reinforced by the recitation in these
claims that the paddles are part of “an arm exercising unit”
(claim 1) or are “for furnishing arm exercise” (claim 7). The
Hribar “volumes” 4 are not designed to be grasped, but rather are
intended to be stood upon while walking, jogging, etc., and
clearly do not include any kind of handle portion.
In addition, even if the Hribar “volumes” might be
considered to be “paddles,” they are not “relatively movable” as
called for by the claims on appeal. Volumes 4 are confined by
the sides 2 and bottom 3 of enclosure 1, covering 9, and tube
connectors 10. While Hribar does disclose that volumes 4 “float”
within enclosure 1 (column 3, lines 31 to 34), their relative
expansion and contraction does not cause them to be relatively
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007