Ex parte RICH - Page 10

               Appeal No. 1998-2383                                                                        Page 10                 
               Application No. 08/116,355                                                                                          

                       With regard to claims 39 and 40, which depend from claim 35, however, we find no                            
               teaching or suggestion in any of the references applied by the examiner in rejecting these claims                   
               to attach the stationary end of the resilient stretchable element either adjacent the knee of the                   
               kneeling leg (claim 39) or to the foot of the kneeling leg (claim 40).  As to claim 56, which also                  
               depends from independent claim 35, the additional steps of extending the moving leg to                              
               substantially full length and arcuately swinging the foot of the extended leg are not taught or                     
               suggested by Tee or the other applied references, Holappa, Chellis and Richardson, either                           
               alone or in combination.  Accordingly, we shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims                      
               39, 40 and 56.                                                                                                      
                                               REMAND TO THE EXAMINER                                                              
                       We remand the application to the examiner for consideration of the following issues:                        
               1.      With regard to claim 41, and all claims depending therefrom, we note that U.S. Patent                       
               No. 4, 815,731, issued to Suarez et al. (Suarez) on March 28, 1989, discloses, in Figure 1, a                       
               method wherein the cuffs (3) of an exercise device, also comprising an intervening coil spring                      
               (4) and elastic cord (5), are placed around the ankles of a user.  The user moves the limbs                         
               away from each other to cause the spring (4) to stretch, thereby providing resistance to the                        
               outward movement of the limbs (column 3, lines 31-36).  Further, it appears to us that the user                     
               illustrated in Figure 1 is lying on her side.  The method of Suarez differs from the method of                      
               claim 41 in that the cuffs are not attached to the foot of the user.  The application is remanded                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007