14189924 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2018)

Ex Parte ARLINE

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 2018

14189924 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 14/189,924 62439 7590 SINORICA, LLC 20251 Century Blvd. Suite 140 FILING DATE 02/25/2014 12/20/2018 Germantown, MD 20874 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Clayton ARLINE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. TUP16837 1495 EXAMINER FISCHER, RAE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3784 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/20/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): SINORICA@GMAIL.COM sinorica@outlook.com pair@sinorica.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CLAYTON ARLINE Appeal2017-008697 Application 14/189 ,924 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a final rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13-16, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal2017-008697 Application 14/189,924 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an isotonic body gym system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An isotonic body gym system comprises: a plurality of isotonic bars; a plurality of power bands; a plurality of band manipulators; a workout bench, wherein the workout bench being positioned adjacent to the plurality of isotonic bars; each of the plurality of isotonic bars comprises a mount bar and a plurality of hooks; each of the plurality of power bands comprises an elastic band, a mount fastener, and a[ n] auxiliary fastener; each of the plurality of band manipulators comprises a band fastener; the plurality of hooks being connected along the mount bar ' the mount fastener being coupled to the elastic band; the mount fastener being coupled to a specific hook from the plurality of hooks; the auxiliary fastener being connected to the elastic band; the mount fastener and the auxiliary fastener being positioned opposite each other along the elastic band; the band fastener being coupled to the auxiliary fastener; each of the plurality of isotonic bars further comprises a plurality of holes and a plurality of fasteners; the plurality of holes being positioned along the mount bar ' the plurality of holes being interspersed between the plurality of hooks; the plurality of fasteners traversing through the plurality of holes; the plurality of hooks being linearly positioned along the mount bar; and the plurality of hooks being equally spaced along the mount bar. 2 Appeal2017-008697 Application 14/189,924 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Soligny Conner Nicassio us 4,861,020 us 5,766,118 US 7,608,026 Bl REJECTIONS Aug. 29, 1989 June 16, 1998 Oct. 27, 2009 Claims 1, 3, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Soligny and Conner. Claims 9-11, 13-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Soligny, Conner, and Nicassio. OPINION Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Appellant argues the rejection of claim 1, but does not address the other claims. It is assumed that Appellant intends for claim 13 to stand or fall with claim 1 based on similar claim elements in both independent claims. The Examiner finds that Soligny teaches an isotonic body gym system including all of the features of claim 1, except "a workout bench positioned adjacent to the plurality of isotonic bars." Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner finds that Conner teaches "a workout bench positioned adjacent to the anchor points of the resistance bands." Id. The Examiner determines that these anchor points are "the equivalent of ... isotonic bars" and that it would have been obvious "to modify the bench taught by Conner with the device of Soligny to allow alternative types of exercise for the user." Id. at 5---6. 3 Appeal2017-008697 Application 14/189,924 Appellant argues that Soligny teaches the use of springs rather than the claimed "power bands." Appeal Br. 4---6. Though Soligny primarily uses springs for resistance in his exercise device, Soligny also teaches "the use of surgical tubing, bon-gee cord, and expand and contractable elastic cords" for the same purpose. Soligny 1 :44--46. The Examiner specifically cites to this disclosure for the requirement in claim 1 that the power band be an elastic band. Final Act. 4. The Examiner further finds that Connor teaches using a resistance band for the resistance element. Ans. 7. The Examiner then determines that the different types of resistance elements are interchangeable. Id. Appellant's argument does not address these teachings or the related findings by the Examiner that the art teaches the claim limitation of a power band. Thus, we are not informed of error in the rejection. Appellant next argues that Soligny does not teach isotonic bars. Appeal Br. 6-7. Appellant explains the meaning of the term "isotonic" and then summarily states that "'isotonic bars' and 'mount bars' are two completely different terms to a skilled one in the art." Id. at 7. The Examiner finds that "isotonic bar" "mean[ s] a bar that is part of the isotonic body gym system." Final Act. 4. As noted by the Examiner, Appellant's written description and claim 1 both specify that isotonic bars include mount bars, as well as, hooks, holes and fasteners. Ans. 8-9. The Examiner has identified each of these components in Soligny (Final Act. 4-- 5) and Appellant does not identify any differences between the teachings of the prior art and the claim. Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection. 4 Appeal2017-008697 Application 14/189,924 Appellant also argues that Soligny's bar 6 is not a "plurality of band manipulators" as required by the claim. Appellant is correct that a single element cannot be a plurality of elements. The Examiner further finds that Soligny teaches "two hand grips used for manipulating the bands." Ans. 12 (citing Soligny 2:56-59). The Examiner determines that the two hand grips reads on a "plurality of band manipulators" as required by the claim. Id. Soligny discusses the use of the two hand grips as an alternative embodiment to that of the single bar 6. Compare Soligny 4:28--44, with id. at 4:45---65. As such, we agree that the two hand grips read on the claimed "plurality of band manipulators." Thus, we are not informed of error in the rejection. Appellant argues that the rejection improperly relies on the same element (22) to be both the "mount fastener" and the "auxiliary fastener." Appeal Br. 8. In the rejection the Examiner finds that "there are two instances of element 22, one at each end of the spring, one of which functions as the mount fastener and the other functions as the auxiliary fastener." Final Act. 4. Appellant's argument does not identify error in the Examiner's finding. The fact that Soligny uses the same reference numeral for two different loops 22 used to connect or fasten the resistance element to different structures does not render the two loops a single loop. Appellant also argues that Soligny does not teach "the band fastener being coupled to the auxiliary fastener." Appeal Br. 8. In the rejection the Examiner relies on the loops 22 connected to hooks/spring guides 11 as teaching this claim element. Final Act. 5 (citing Soligny 3:55---68); see also Ans. 17-18. Appellant acknowledges that the loops are connected to the spring guides 11 but does not explain why this does not meet the required 5 Appeal2017-008697 Application 14/189,924 limitation. Appeal Br. 8. Thus, we are not informed of error in the rejection. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13-16, 19, and 20 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6