Appeal No. 98-2771
Application 08/428,863
we are compelled to sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
5 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 11 and 12 on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Morozov in view of Oaks as
applied to claims 1 and 10 above, further in view of Puckett.
In the examiner’s opinion, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art, based on the applied references,
to use ethylene vinyl acetate for the pad (6) of Morozov.
Puckett discloses the use of ethylene vinyl acetate (col. 3,
lines 36-37) for the pad (70) of a platform-type exercise aid.
Appellant’s argument regarding claims 11 and 12 is found on
page 7 of the brief, wherein it is urged that there is no
suggestion in the applied references of using that particular
material in an exercise board having the other features of
appellant’s invention. We find this argument unpersuasive,
because it appears to put forth the position that the prior
art must expressly teach or suggest exactly what appellant has
done. We, of course, agree with appellant that there must be
some teaching or incentive in the prior art for suggesting the
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007