Appeal No. 98-2771
Application 08/428,863
athlete is “evenly spread through the panel 4 on the spring
elements 3,” all of which statements clearly convey the
perception that the panel or platform (4) of Morozov is
“substantially rigid.” Moreover, we also agree with the
examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, considering the collective teachings of
Morozov and Oaks, to make the platforms/panels (4)
of the track in Morozov “substantially rigid” so as to provide
a rigid, stable feel to the surface portion of the acrobatic
running track during use thereof by an athlete.
Based on the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In
addition, we note that, in accordance with appellant’s
grouping of the claims (brief, page 4) and the statement of
page 6 of the brief, claims 2, 3, 9, 10 and 13 will fall with
claim 1.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of appellant’s claims
7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the basis of the combined
teachings of Morozov and Oaks, we must agree with appellant
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007