Appeal No. 98-1201 Page 3
Application No. 08/527,784
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 4, mailed April 25, 1996) and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 13, mailed August 4, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 12, filed April 25, 1997) and reply brief
(Paper No. 14, filed September 8, 1997) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
Improvements for adapting for aquatic use an
exercise device of a type worn encircling relation about
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007