Appeal No. 1999-0113 Page 12
Application No. 08/472,321
that such a covering, if placed on the hand grip of Orford, would be "stretchable with the
stretchable member" of the hand grip as required by the claim. Therefore, we shall not sustain
the examiner's rejection of claim 11.
Rejection 4
The examiner has rejected claims 15 and 16, which require a rigid flat platform for
accommodating the body of the person exercising and a stationary anchor to which the resilient
stretchable element recited in claim 5 or 9 is fastened, as unpatentable over Swann in view of
Dubach. Swann discloses an exercising apparatus comprising a flat rectangular support having
a pair of spaced end bars (13, 14) at each end with eye bolts (15, 16) attached thereto for
fastening tension means (26) with hand grips (25). The examiner takes the position that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fasten the tensile elements (2)
with hand grips (1) taught by Dubach onto the Swann apparatus, "thereby enhancing the
versatility of the device by adding stretchable handle elements which allow a user to also
exercise their hands" (answer, page 7).
The appellant has chosen not to argue the patentability of claims 15 and 16 separately
from independent claim 5. Rather, the appellant has elected to have claims 15 and 16 stand or
fall with claim 5, apparently relying on the perceived deficiencies of Dubach in teaching a
resilient stretchable element and flexible stretchable loop as required in claim 5. As we have
sustained the examiner's rejection of claim 5 as being unpatentable over Dubach, it follows that
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007