Appeal No. 1998-2825
Application No. 08/595,282
the examiner did not suggest that Crossing could be so
interpreted. Rather, the examiner concluded that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the method disclosed in Crossing by eliminating the
step of entering a fitness mode and, thus, providing a heart
rate target zone based solely on a person’s age. For the
reason discussed above, we agree with the examiner.
Furthermore, Crossing explicitly teaches that the user
does not have to enter an exercise time, in which case “the
unit times up and not down” (col. 5, lines 44-46). Even if
time is entered after age is entered, it plays no part in the
calculation of the target heart zone in Crossing.
For the above reasons, the examiner's rejection of claim
1 is sustained. Appellant has grouped claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9
as standing or falling together. Thereby, in accordance with
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 3, 5, 7 and 9 fall with claim 1.
Thus, it follows that the examiner's rejection of claims 3, 5,
7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also sustained.
Rejection (2)
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007