Ex parte RICH - Page 11

               Appeal No. 1998-2383                                                                        Page 11                 
               Application No. 08/116,355                                                                                          

               to the examiner to consider whether it would have been obvious, either in view of the teachings                     
               of Suarez alone or in combination with other prior art of which the examiner may be aware, to                       
               attach the cuffs of the exercise device to the feet, rather than the ankles of the user, in carrying                
               out the Suarez method.                                                                                              
               2.      With regard to claim 46, Holappa teaches the use of the disclosed exercise board for                        
               exercising the abdominal muscles by lifting and lowering the legs and, optionally, doing a                          
               partial sit-up exercise while the legs are retained on the exercise board (column 2, line 66, to                    
               column 3, line 4).  While Holappa does not disclose the step of "simultaneously moving the                          
               hips upwardly against the elongate stretchable element" as required by claim 46, U.S. Patent                        
               No. 4,752,067, issued to Colonello on June 21, 1988, suggests that a maneuver called a "pelvic                      
               tilt" consisting of flexing the pelvis to flatten the lower back and thereby reduce strain on the                   
               sensitive discal structures, in the context of sit-ups, would have been familiar to "the exercise                   
               enthusiast" at the time of the appellant's invention (column 5, lines 14-18).  The examiner may,                    
               in fact, be aware of other references which teach that such a maneuver would have been well                         
               known to one of ordinary skill in the exercising art at the time of the appellant's invention.  The                 
               application is remanded to the examiner to consider whether it would have been obvious, in                          
               view of, for example, the combined teachings of Holappa and Colonello and/or other prior art,                       
               to simultaneously move the hips upwardly, as in a pelvic tilt maneuver, against resistance                          
               provided by a resilient element overlying the person's hips as required by claim 46.                                

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007