Appeal No. 98-2352
Application 08/245,870
claimed invention” (answer, page 6) and instead agree with appellants’ position that
the apparatus of Rockwell cannot perform the functions required of the means plus
function language in claims 1, 10 and 18 on appeal. For that reason, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 10 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b)/103 based on Rockwell alone, or the rejection of dependent
claims 2 through 8, 11 through 16 and 20 through 24 on the same basis.
Since we see nothing in Sammaratano which would supply that which we find
lacking in Rockwell, it follows that the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 9, 17
and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 relying on Rockwell and Sammaratano will also not be
sustained.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 1 through 3, 6 and 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b)/103 based on Smidt. In this instance, after a careful review of the
Smidt patent, it is our determination that the apparatus of Smidt is fully responsive to
that set forth in claim 1 on appeal and does anticipate the claimed subject matter. In
reading claim 1 on the apparatus of Smidt, the examiner has indicated that Smidt
includes a frame (10); ASIS pads (90, 91) and thigh pad (70) which form means
mounted to the frame for resisting forward movement of the user’s hips to direct the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007