Appeal No. 98-2352
Application 08/245,870
structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof, there is
no requirement that the prior art reference suggest that such element
actually be intended to perform the recited function. In re Yanush, 477
F.2d 958, 177 USPQ 705 (CCPA 1973).
Appellants argue (brief, pages 10-13) that even if the examiner’s proposed
manner of using the Rockwell exercise apparatus were possible, the inclination of the
Rockwell seating assembly (44, 53) would pitch the user to such a state of imbalance
that the gluteus maximus muscles would not be relaxed and the hamstrings would not
be directed to a relaxed condition, as is required in claims 1 and 10 on appeal,
because all muscles would be tight in order to prevent the user from falling from the
device. Appellants characterize the examiner’s position set forth above as being a
“fanciful interpretation” based on hindsight. With respect to the obviousness rejection
based on Rockwell, appellants again urge that the seating arrangement of Rockwell
cannot perform the functions required of the means plus function language of claims
1, 10 and 18 on appeal, and that there is no suggestion in Rockwell to assume a
stance on the device like that posited by the examiner. As a further point, appellants
have made the argument that
“while the Examiner asserts that the cushion 82 would be at the
upper back of a user if they kneeled on the platform 44 with the thighs
against the cushion 53, such a result would only be achievable by a
very strange shaped person. At best, the cushion 82 would be disposed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007