Appeal No. 2006-0790
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,117
35. The examiner did not identify any evidence or
persuasive technical reasoning to establish that when
rotational force is applied to the handle means of
Damark’s treadmill, the center of gravity is
5 positioned such that the treadmill necessarily rotates
about the wheels.
Discussion
Grouping of Claims
10 Prior to addressing the merits, we note the appellant’s
statements that: (i) claims 1 through 3 and 10 through 12 stand
or fall together with respect to rejection I; and (ii) claims 4
through 9 stand or fall together with respect to rejection II.
(FF1; Appeal brief filed on December 31, 2001 at 7.) We
15 therefore select claims 1 and 4 as representative of each of the
two groups of claims rejected in grounds I and II, respectively,
and confine our discussion to these representative claims. See
37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii)(2005)(effective September 13, 2004).
20 Rejection I: Claims 1-3 & 10-12 over Damark & Teague
For convenience, appealed claim 1 is reproduced again as
follows (FF2):
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007