Appeal No. 98-0985 Page 13
Application No. 08/271,022
We agree with the appellants that the subject matter of
claim 49 is not suggested or taught by the applied prior art.
Specifically, the microprocessor (referred to by the examiner
in Airy at column 15, lines 13-20) does not control the
resistance of the exercise apparatus. Accordingly, all the
limitations of claim 49, and claims 50-52 dependent thereon,
are not suggested by the applied prior art. Thus, the 2
decision of the examiner to reject claims 49-52 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claims 44-47
We sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 44-47 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
The additional teachings of Whitelaw and Hughes are
generally set forth on pages 11-12 of the brief and pages 7-9
of the answer.
2We have also reviewed the Makansi reference additionally
applied in the rejection of claim 51 (dependent on claim 50)
but find nothing therein which makes up for the deficiencies
of Airy and Dalebout discussed above regarding claim 49.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007