Appeal No. 2006-0790
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,117
upright structure with said tread base in said second
position.” (Final Office action at 4.)
32. Day teaches an exercising device which may be folded
into a storage position and retained in such position
5 by use of set screws 16. (Page 2, lines 20-56;
Figures 1-2.)
33. The examiner alleged (answer at 6):
It is inherent that Damark’s treadmill (see
figure) is heavier at the roller means and as
10 broadly claimed, Damarks’s [sic] center of
gravity is positioned relative to said roller
means and said handle means to facilitate
rotation of said treadmill about said wheel means
upon application of a rotational force by the
15 user to said handle means.
34. The appellant asserted (substitute appeal brief at
13):
[T]here is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation
20 in Damark of distributing the components of the
treadmill such that the treadmill has a center of
gravity that assists the user in tipping or
rotating the treadmill onto the wheels for
transport. In fact, there is no mention or
25 discussion whatsoever in the Damark reference
regarding the placement of specific components,
weight distribution or center of gravity, much
less the benefit (i.e., making it easier for the
user to rotate or tip the treadmill onto its
30 wheels, which is more significant in relation to
heavier, motorized treadmills) that is achieved
and claimed by appellant.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007