Appeal No. 98-1044
Application 08/126,336
without reading limitations from the specification into the
claims. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541,
550-51 (CCPA 1969). As pointed out above, it is not apparent
why Schuman's rigid block would not be inherently capable of
the functional and/or use limitations actually set forth in
the preamble and body of claim 11.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claim 11 as being anticipated by
Schuman.
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejections of claims 1, 9 and 10 as being unpatentable
over Schuman in view of Bifulco, or of claim 2 as being
unpatentable over Schuman in view of Bifulco and Humphrey.
Claim 1 recites an exercise apparatus comprising, inter
alia, a nondeformable block and a pair of leg straps to wrap
around each respective thigh. Claim 9 recites an exercise
apparatus comprising, inter alia, a nondeformable block and
means to mount the block between the thighs. Claim 10 depends
from claim 9 and further defines this means as including a
pair of leg straps which wrap around each respective thigh.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007