Appeal No. 2006-0790
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,117
said tread base in said second position.
3. The examiner did not find that the limitation “a gas
spring connected between the tread base and the
5 upright structure to assist in stably retaining said
tread base in said second position relative to said
upright structure with said tread base in said second
position” in appealed claim 1 invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112,
¶6.
10 4. The appellant never challenged the examiner’s
interpretation of the last clause of appealed claim 1
(or any other clause in the appealed claims) as
invoking the strictures of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6.
5. At oral argument held on April 6, 2006, the
15 appellant’s counsel was asked whether the last clause
in appealed claim 1 invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6.
6. In response to the question, the appellant’s counsel
confirmed that the last clause of appealed claim 1 did
not invoke the strictures of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6.
20 7. Damark discloses a manual treadmill identified as
“Wilson Manual Treadmill” comprising: a base that
necessarily includes a frame having a front, a rear,
left side, and a right side with an endless belt
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007