Appeal No. 2005-1953 Page 13
Application No. 09/765,533
positioned from the longitudinal and transverse axises extend beyond this point of
intersection of the major axises.
Appellant argues that Dionne fails to describe a symmetrical body placement
guide on the upper surface of the mat, which is configured to aid the yoga practitioner
to properly align the body during yoga postures. (Reply Brief, pp. 14-16). We do not
agree. The pattern on the mat of Dionne provides indicia which function as placement
marks. These indicia allow a person utilizing the mat to measure or observe the body
position. For example, a person stretching on the mat could reach for the intersection
of the various lines of the grid pattern either inside of the same quadrant or in multiple
quadrants, which allows for body alignment measurement.
Appellant has presented extensive arguments in the various Briefs regarding
the use of the mat for performing yoga. Specifically, Appellant argues the distinction
between golf and yoga movements and positions. These arguments are not
persuasive since the term “yoga” appearing in the claims does not exclude the indicia
or the structure of the mat described in Dionne.
The subject matter of claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20 and 21 further defines the pattern
on the upper surface of the mat as defining multiple segments of equal area parallel to
either the longitudinal axis or the transverse axis. Appellant argues “[t]he
interpretation of the grid 30 [of Dionne] as defining ‘multiple segments’ is not
consistent with the specification.” (Brief, p. 38). This argument is not persuasive. It is
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007