Appeal No. 98-1044
Application 08/126,336
impermissibly derived from the appellants' own teachings.
Humphrey, applied against claim 2 for its disclosure of a golf
practice device timer, does not cure the foregoing flaw in the
Schuman-Bifulco combination.
Finally, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejections of claims 3 through 5 as being unpatentable
over Ruden in view of Hoff, Silberman and Noble, or of claims
12 and 13 as being unpatentable over Ruden in view of Hoff and
Silberman.
Claims 3 through 5, 12 and 13 are drawn to an exercise
therapy method having the step of placing a substantially
nondeformable block between a seated patient's inner thighs
just above the knees. Although Ruden discloses an exercise
therapy method wherein a block 12 is placed between a seated
patient's inner thighs just above the knees (see Figures 2 and
3), the block is a "deformable, resilient compression member"
(Ruden, column 3, line 31). Thus, Ruden does not meet the
claim limitations requiring the block to be substantially
nondeformable.
Silberman discloses a "chest pull exerciser comprising a
pair of hand grips with a plurality of elastic means extending
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007