Ex Parte MCDONALD - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2003-1144                                                        
          Application 09/212,343                                                      


          Appellant's invention is directed to a flotation device for                 
          use in the water and, more particularly, to a flotation device              
          for use in exercise programs conducted in the water. Independent            
          claim 9 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and               
          reads as follows:                                                           


               9.  An exercise device for use in water by a user, the                 
          device comprising a unitary piece of material adapted for                   
          floating and having:                                                        
               a buoyancy for supporting a user positioned in a body of               
          water;                                                                      
               two opposed end portions having opposed sides, the end                 
          portions having sufficient length to envelop a trunk of the user;           
          and                                                                         
               a narrowed central portion in connecting relation to the two           
          end portions and dimensioned to fit between the upper leg                   
          portions of the user, wherein in use the user places the central            
          portion between the legs, causing the end portions to be buoyed             
          upward and over the chest and back of the user, the end portions            
          freely extending and unjoined along the sides, enveloping the               
          truck of the user and thereby supporting the user in an upright             
          position suitable for supporting [sic, performing] an exercise.             

          The prior art references of record relied upon by the                       
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Marchello et al. (Marchello)  4,276,670           July  7, 1981             
          Helt et al. (Helt)                 4,986,786      Jan. 22, 1991             




                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007