Appeal No. 2006-0790
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,117
treadmill about said wheel means upon application of a
rotational force by the user to said handle means.” (Emphasis
added.)
The examiner took the position that Damark discloses every
5 limitation of appealed claim 13 except for the claim limitation
“means for stably retaining said tread base in said second
position relative to said upright structure with said tread base
in said second position.” (FF31; final Office action at 4.) To
account for this difference, the examiner relied on the
10 teachings of Day.4
As to the limitation “said treadmill is configured to have
a center of gravity 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” (last recited element), the examiner
alleged (FF33; answer at 6):
It is inherent that Damark’s treadmill (see figure) is
heavier at the roller means and as broadly claimed,
Damarks’s [sic] center of gravity is positioned
20 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
user to said handle means.
4 Day teaches an exercising device which may be folded into
a storage position and retained in such position by use of set
screws 16. (FF32; page 2, lines 20-56; Figures 1-2.)
30
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007