Appeal No. 98-2352
Application 08/245,870
With regard to the examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 4 and 8 under 35
U.S.C. §103 based respectively on Smidt in view of Marras and Smidt in view of
Boren, we must agree with appellants (brief, pages 15-16), that there is no
reasonable teaching, suggestion or incentive in the applied references which would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the already complete dynamometer
device of Smidt with the pelvic stabilization belt structure (30) of Marras or the leg
restraint device (60) of Boren. Moreover, unlike the examiner (answer, page 13), we
see no basis to conclude that the belt structure of Marras and the leg restraint device
in Boren are necessarily “art recognized equivalents” of the hip (90, 91), thigh (70)
and leg restraint arrangements seen in Smidt or that such structures from Marras and
Boren would necessarily provide the same degree of restraint of the user if
substituted into the Smidt device. Thus, the examiner’s rejections of claims 4 and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained.
To summarize, we have not sustained 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, or the rejection
of claims 9, 17 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Rockwell in
view of Sammaratano. We have sustained the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007