Appeal No. 98-2352
Application 08/245,870
December 27, 1996). Appellants’ conflicting viewpoints concerning the examiner's
rejections of the appealed claims are found in the corrected brief (Paper No. 15, filed
September 23, 1996).
0PINION
In arriving at our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered appellants’
specification and claims, the applied references, and the respective viewpoints of
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 8, 10 through 16, 18
and 20 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by, or in the alternative
under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over, Rockwell, we note that it is the examiner’s
position that Rockwell discloses
“an exercise apparatus, Fig. 1, comprising a frame 10 including a
backrest 53 having an upper portion (means mounted to the frame for
resisting forward movement of the user’s hips to direct the user’s
gluteus maximus muscles to a relaxed condition; movement resisting
member mounted to the frame for contact with the pelvic girdle region
of a user kneeling on the apparatus; movement resisting member
mounted to the frame and disposed for engagement by the front of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007