Appeal No. 2006-0790
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,117
spaced from and in general alignment with said left
upright member.
4. The treadmill of claim 3, wherein said handle
5 means includes a left handle mechanically associated
with said left upright member and a right handle
mechanically associated with said right upright
member.
10 The appellant does not dispute the examiner’s findings with
respect to Dalebout. (FF26; substitute appeal brief at 11.)
Nor does the appellant assert that one of ordinary skill in the
art would not have found it obvious to combine Dalebout with
Damark and Teague. Rather, the appellant refers to the same
15 arguments made against the basic combination of Damark and
Teague as discussed in rejection I. (FF27.)
For reasons already discussed in rejection I, we detect no
error in the examiner’s basic combination of Damark and Teague.
Accordingly, we uphold the examiner’s rejection of appealed
20 claim 4 as well.
Rejection III: Claim 13 over Damark & Day
Claim 13 recites (FF28):
13. A treadmill comprising:
25 support structure having a base for stably
positioning on a support surface to be free standing
and having upright structure extending upwardly from
said base;
a tread base having a frame that includes a
28
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007