Appeal No. 1999-0113 Page 7
Application No. 08/472,321
of a person to a length which exceeds its length at rest by at least 100% (i.e., at least a doubling of the
length) as urged in our colleague's concurring opinion, we agree with the examiner's conclusion that to
manufacture the Dubach tensile element to have such resiliency and range of stretch ability would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The appellant (brief, pages 7-8) argues that Dubach fails to disclose that the ring (1) is
"stretchable" and "configured to receive either a hand or foot in the alternative of the person
exercising . . . closely conforming to and gripping either the hand or foot of the person."
The disclosure by Dubach that the rings are "elastic plastic material or rubber" belies the
appellant's argument with regard to stretch ability of the rings. Further, from our perspective,
these rings are capable of receiving either a hand or foot of a person exercising and of closely
conforming to and gripping an appropriately sized hand or foot.
For the reasons discussed above, we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 5,
and claim 6 which stands or falls therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Dubach.
Rejection 2
Orford discloses an exercising apparatus which "allows a wide range of healthful
exercises to be performed" (page 1, lines 42-44) comprising a chest harness having resilient
cords (13), which "may consist of multi-strand rubber, or of helical steel springs (page 2, lines
28-30) and hand grips (14) made of leather bent over to form a rolled gripping portion (15) and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007