Ex Parte Bellandi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2013

12173586 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/173,586 07/15/2008 Alicla Bellandi 506-2 7070
24336 7590 06/03/2013
TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C.
425 Broadhollow Road, Suite 302
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
JALALZADEH ABYANE, SHILA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3764
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/03/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALICIA BELLANDI
___________

Appeal 2011-004851
Application 12/173,586
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004851
Application 12/173,586

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Alicia Bellandi (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1, 2, 4
and 9-11 as unpatentable over Curley (US 2009/0062076 A1, pub. Mar. 5,
2009); (2) claims 3, 12, 14, 18-20 and 22 as unpatentable over Curley and
Schlosser (US 7,131,936 B2, iss. Nov. 7, 2006); (3) claims 5-7 and 13 as
unpatentable over Curley and Wilkins (US 2007/0032353 A1, pub. Feb. 8,
2007); (4) claims 15 and 21 as unpatentable over Curley, Schlosser and
Wilkins; and (5) claim 8 as unpatentable over Curley and Frazier (US
7,486,197 B1, iss. Feb. 3, 2009).1 Claims 16 and 17 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention “relates to a mat for teaching specific gymnastic
moves, for example, a cartwheel.” Spec., para. [0001]; figs. 1-2.
Claims 1 and 14 are illustrative of the claimed invention and read as
follows:
1. A standalone mat comprising:
a plurality of sequentially aligned sections each
delineated for receiving one of a hand or foot of a user, wherein
at least two adjacent center sections are designated for
exclusively receiving hands, such that one center section
receives a right hand and the other center section receives a left
hand; and

1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1-15 and 18-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Ans. 13.
Appeal 2011-004851
Application 12/173,586
3
at least one indicator in communication with each of said
plurality of sequentially aligned sections and responsive to a
user’s hand and foot placement onto a respective section while
performing a gymnastic movement, said indicator providing
proper or improper indications in response to the user’s
performance of the gymnastic movement, including whether the
hand or foot has been placed in the correct position within each
of said plurality of sequentially aligned sections.

14. A gymnastic mat comprising:
a plurality of linearly and sequentially arranged sections,
wherein at least two adjacent center sections are designated for
exclusively receiving hands, such that one center section
receives a right hand and the other center section receives a left
hand;
at least one sensor positioned in each of said plurality of
sections;
an audio indicator having a sound corresponding to each
of said plurality of sections, wherein proper sequential
placement of the hands and feet during execution of a
gymnastic move results in a predetermined sound sequence of
the sound for each of the plurality of sections indicating proper
sequential execution of the gymnastic movement; and
a power supply connected to said at least one sensor in
each of said plurality of sections and said audio indicator.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Curley – Claims 1, 2, 4 and 9-11
Appellant indicates that claims 2, 4 and 9-11 stand or fall with the
rejection of independent claim 1. Br. 7. Accordingly, we review this ground
of rejection on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appellant argues that Curley fails to teach or suggest “a plurality of
sequentially aligned sections . . . wherein at least two adjacent center
sections are designated for exclusively receiving hands,” as recited in claim
1. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellant contends that with
Appeal 2011-004851
Application 12/173,586
4
respect to Curley, (1) “[t]he hand placement sections (i.e., items 120 and
125) are located on the outside of the mat. The foot placement stations (i.e.,
items 160 and 165) are located inside the hand placement stations, but they
are not aligned with the hand placement stations;” (2) “the hand placement
stations [i.e., 120 and 125] are not ‘adjacent’ to each other, and they cannot
be considered ‘center sections’ since they are located on the periphery of the
mat;” and (3) “sections 120, 125, 160 and 165 are [not] in sequential order
given the relatively large gap and divider which lie between the foot
placement sections [i.e., 160 and 165].” Id. at 12-13.
Appellant further argues that
Although paragraph [0050] of Curley
explains that the hand and foot placement stations
can be varied, one of ordinary skill in the art would
not arrive at the particular configuration of the mat
recited in the present claims upon reading the
disclosure of Curely. As explained in the present
specification, the arrangement of Applicant's mat
is particularly useful for executing gymnastics
moves, and in particular, for ensuring the proper
execution of a cartwheel. As such, the mat
includes a plurality of sequentially aligned sections
that includes two center sections which are
reserved exclusively for receiving hands.
However, since Curley's mat is designed to be used
with yoga exercises, this reference fails to suggest
or even remotely contemplate the specific
arrangement of the mat recited in the present
claims.

Id. at 13.
Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification, reading claim language in light of the specification as
it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Appeal 2011-004851
Application 12/173,586
5
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We note that
Appellant’s Specification does not expressly define the terms “sequential,”
“aligned” or “adjacent” or otherwise indicate that these terms are used in a
manner other than their ordinary and customary meanings. We agree with
the Examiner that under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with Appellant’s Specification, Curley discloses a standalone mat including
a plurality of sequentially aligned placement stations (i.e., 120, 160, 165,
125). Ans. 5, 13-16; Curley, figs. 1-2. We further agree with the Examiner
that (1) Curley discloses “using the mat to perform any desired exercise such
as a dance routine.” Id. at 17 (citing Curley, para. [0050]); and (2) “broadly
interpreted, [a] dance routine is considered a gymnastic movement.” Id. We
also agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that
Curley, in paragraph [0050], mentions that the
hand and foot placement stations are removable
and exchangeable and that number and location of
the placement stations can be varied depending on
the nature of the exercise for which the mat is
used. Consequently, although Curley shows the
two foot placement stations are in the middle in
Fig. 1, Curley still teaches the fact that depending
on the type of exercise (such as karate, yoga or
dance routines) the placement of the stations can
be varied and therefore, since the placement
stations are removable and their
location/arrangement can be changed, the device is
capable of having the two [adjacent] hand
placements at the center of the mat . . . . As a
result, the device of Curley can have the [adjacent]
hand placement stations in the middle [i.e., in the
center section].
Id. at 15.

Appeal 2011-004851
Application 12/173,586
6
The Examiner’s finding that Curley discloses a standalone mat
including a plurality of sequentially aligned sections, wherein at least two
adjacent center sections can be designated for exclusively receiving hands is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant has not provided
any persuasive evidence of error regarding the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions regarding the disclosure of Curley.
Appellant also argues that Curley fails to teach or suggest “at least
one indicator in communication with each of said plurality of sequentially
aligned sections and responsive to a user’s hand and foot placement onto a
respective section while performing a gymnastic movement, said indicator
providing proper or improper indications in response to the user’s
performance of the gymnastic movement,” as required by claim 1. Br. 14
(emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellant argues that
although Curley does briefly mention that the mat
therein may include audio sensor feedback, this
reference fails to teach or suggest a mat wherein
‘each’ section is in communication with an
indicator. Moreover, this reference further fails to
teach or suggest that the indicator is responsive to
a user’s hand and foot placement ‘while
performing a gymnastics movement’ or that the
indicator provides proper or improper indications
‘in response to the user’s performance of the
gymnastic movement.’
Id.
First, as correctly pointed out by the Examiner, “[t]he claim language
as presented currently, only requires one indicator, wherein the indicator is
in communication with each of the sections . . . not existence of an indicator
in each of the sections.” Ans. 17. While Appellant’s Specification describes
an embodiment including an indicator in each of the sections (Spec., para.
Appeal 2011-004851
Application 12/173,586
7
[00030]; fig. 3), we are not constrained to read any such direct connection
into claim 1 when Appellant has chosen to claim the invention using broad
language, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation, does not
require an indicator in each of the sections. Here, Curley expressly teaches
that the “mat of the invention can include an audio sensor feedback located
on or in the hand and feet placement stations.” Curley, para. [0051].
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Curley discloses an audio
sensor feedback (i.e., at least one indicator) in communication with each of
the hand and foot placement stations (i.e., 120, 125, 160, 165). Ans. 17.
Second, as discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner that “broadly
interpreted, [a] dance routine is considered a gymnastic movement.” Id. In
addition, we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that
in paragraph [0051], Curley mentions that when a
participant depresses a placement station, the
electronic audio recording sounds ‘right foot’ as an
audio feedback response. As a result, when the
user depresses a right hand on a right foot
placement station, the audio feedback device
produces the sound ‘right foot’. As a result, the
user would know that their hand placement was
improper since the proper or correct placement of
the right hand on the right hand placement station
would produce a ‘right hand’ sound. As a result,
based on the hand and foot placement on the
placement stations, a corresponding sound is
produced which is an indication to the user to see
if a performance was correct or incorrect based on
the hand and foot placement and the respective
generated sound. Also as it can be seen from Fig.
1, the hand and foot placement stations look
different (they are visually different).
Accordingly, the shape of the placement stations
can serve as an indication for the user which are
responsive to the user's hand and foot placement
Appeal 2011-004851
Application 12/173,586
8
and that the user would know that if the user’s
hand is on a foot placement station, the movement
is being performed incorrectly and the movement
is improper.
Id. at 17-18.
The Examiner’s finding that Curley discloses at least one indicator in
communication with each of the plurality of sequentially aligned sections
and responsive to a user’s hand and foot placement onto a respective section
while performing a gymnastic movement, wherein the indicator provides
proper or improper indications in response to the user’s performance of the
gymnastic movement is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appellant has not provided any persuasive evidence of error regarding the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the disclosure of Curley.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and of claims 2, 4 and 9-11, which fall with claim 1.
Obviousness over Curley and Schlosser – Claims 3 and 12
Appellant indicates that claims 3 and 12 stand or fall with the
rejection of independent claim 1. Br. 7. For the reasons discussed supra, we
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we likewise
sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 12.
Obviousness over Curley and Schlosser – Claims 14, 18-20 and 22
Appellant indicates that claims 18-20 and 22 stand or fall with the
rejection of independent claim 14. Br. 7. Accordingly, we review this
ground of rejection on the basis of claim 14. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appellant indicates that independent claim 14 includes many of the
same limitations as independent claim 1. Br. 17-18. In the interest of
brevity, we will not repeat our response to Appellant’s arguments regarding
Appeal 2011-004851
Application 12/173,586
9
these same limitations and will only address those arguments that differ from
the arguments previously presented, which are addressed supra.
First, Appellant argues that “claim 14 recites that the sections of the
mat are ‘linearly’ arranged . . . the sections of Curley’s mat are not linearly
arranged. Rather, the foot placement sections are situated beneath the hand
placements on the mat.” Id. at 18.
Regarding Appellant’s first argument, the Examiner found that Curley
discloses “linearly” arranged hand and foot placement sections, i.e., 120,
125, 160, 165. Ans. 7, 14, 18-19; Curley, figs. 1-2. The Examiner further
pointed out that Curley discloses “rearrangement of the [hand and foot]
placement stations [i.e., 120, 125, 160, 165] according to a desired exercise
[i.e., a dance routine].” Id. at 19 (citing Curley, para. [0050]). The
Examiner concluded that Curley discloses “this limitation [i.e., linearly
arranged hand and foot placement sections] of . . . claim 14.” Id. Appellant
has not provided any persuasive evidence of error regarding the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions regarding the disclosure of Curley.
Second, Appellant argues that

claim [14] further recites that the ‘proper
sequential placement of the hands and feet’ during
execution of a gymnastic move results in a
predetermined sound sequence which indicates the
‘proper sequential execution of the gymnastic
movement’. Since the cited references also fail to
teach or suggest these elements, claim 14 is
believed to be patentable and non-obvious over the
references for these additional reasons.
Br. 18.
Regarding Appellant’s second argument, the Examiner found that
Curley discloses a mat including an audio feedback sensor that is located in
Appeal 2011-004851
Application 12/173,586
10
or on the hand and foot placement stations and depression of a placement
station by the user, produces “a feedback/audio corresponding to that
section, such as ‘right foot’ when the user touches the right foot section.”
Ans. 8; see also id. at 19; Curley, para. [0051]. The Examiner further
reasoned that
as a result, the user would know if their hand or
foot placement in any of the placement station is
correct or proper based on the produced sound
(please note that a dance routine is considered a
gymnastic move. Since a dance routine involves a
certain order in hand and foot placements, the
sound that is generated for a correct routine is
specific to that routine and it involves a
predetermined sound sequence). For instance,
when the user depresses a right hand on a right
foot placement station (in performing a routine),
the audio feedback device produces the sound
‘right foot’. As a result, the user would know that
their hand placement was improper since the
proper or correct placement of the right hand on
the right hand placement station would produce a
‘right hand’ sound. As a result, based on the hand
and foot placement on the placement stations, a
corresponding sound is produced which is an
indication to the user to see if a performance was
correct or incorrect based on the hand and foot
placement and the respective generated sounds.
Id. at 19.

Appellant has not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions regarding the disclosure of Curley. Appellant merely reiterates
a portion of what the disputed claim limitations recite and makes a general
allegation that neither Curley nor Schlosser disclose these limitations. Br.
18. Merely reciting the language of the claims and asserting that the cited
Appeal 2011-004851
Application 12/173,586
11
prior art references do not disclose each claim limitation is insufficient. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“we hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art.”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.”)). Consequently, Appellant’s argument is
unpersuasive.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 14 and of claims 18-20 and 22, which fall with claim 14.
Obviousness over Curley and Wilkins – Claims 5-7 and 13
Appellant indicates that claims 5-7 and 13 stand or fall with the
rejection of independent claim 1. Br. 7. For the reasons discussed supra, we
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we likewise
sustain the rejection of claims 5-7 and 13.
Obviousness over Curley, Schlosser and Wilkins – Claims 15 and 21
Appellant indicates that claims 15 and 21 stand or fall with the
rejection of independent claim 14. Br. 7. For the reasons discussed supra,
we sustain the rejection of independent claim 14. Accordingly, we also
sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 21.
Obviousness over Curley and Frazier – Claim 8
Appellant indicates that claim 8 stands or falls with the rejection of
independent claim 1. Br. 7. For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the
Appeal 2011-004851
Application 12/173,586
12
rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we likewise sustain the
rejection of claim 8.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-15 and
18-22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh