Appeal No. 98-0985 Page 14
Application No. 08/271,022
The examiner determined (answer, pp. 7-8) that in
addition to the difference noted above with respect to parent
claim 42, Airy discloses the claimed device "except for a
program means for varying the resistance of the first and
second sections at different relative angles." With regard to
this additional difference, the examiner then determined that
[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to include
the method of providing the resistance means of Airy in
view of Dalebout with the adjustable resistance means of
Whitelaw and Hughes, in order to provide the user
different resistance relative to the positions of the
first and second sections for a smooth resistance to the
movement.
Once again, implicit in this rejection is the examiner's
view that the above noted modifications of Airy would result
in a method which corresponds to the method recited in claims
44-47 in all respects.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 25-27) that there is no
suggestion to combine the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention. We do not agree. Airy teaches (column 5, lines 1-
5) that frame sections 18 and 20 are provided with a
resistance unit to apply desired levels of resistance.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007