Appeal No. 98-2771
Application 08/428,863
but rather is a section of acrobatic running track. In
addition, appellant argues that if Morozov and Oaks were
combined, the result would be an acrobatic running track
section having a flat, rigid board supported by springs
extending between a pair of longitudinally extending frame
members, and not a stand alone, portable exercise board as
appellant has provided. We find these arguments to be
unpersuasive. In the first place, we view the entire
acrobatic running track seen in Figures 1 and 2 of Morozov to
be a “portable, stand alone exercise board” which comprises a
plurality of sections, each of which sections includes a
generally rectangular, “substantially rigid” platform (4)
sized as required in appellant’s claim 1 and a plurality of
supports or feet (seen in Figure 2) affixed to the underside
of the platform and positioned “toward corners of the
platform.” Each of the sections also includes at least a pair
of arched springs (3) of resilient spring material extending
between the feet adjacent opposing side margins of the
platform and imparting an upwardly convex contour to the
platform while permitting the platform to flex with a
resilient action in response to the weight of a person who is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007