Appeal No. 98-2771
Application 08/428,863
that the spring elements therein are “made of several layers
of plywood glued together.” Our review of Mansfield indicates
that this reference discloses making the flexible, semi-rigid
plate or platform (12) of the exercise device therein of
aluminum (col. 2, line 60), or other material like plastics,
such as fiberglass or polycarbonate (col. 3, lines 11-13).
Like appellant, we see nothing in these references which would
have been suggestive to one of ordinary skill in the art of
making the springs (3) of Morozov out of fiberglass. If
anything, it would appear to us that the collective teachings
of the applied references would have led an artisan to make
the platform (4) of Morozov out of a flexible, semi-rigid
material such as fiberglass, not the spring elements (3).
Thus, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 4
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
We next look to the examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and
6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Morozov in
view of Oaks as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view
of Marcolin, the German reference. Recognizing that the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007