The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied Raymond Gianelli’s application for a patent for a “Rowing Machine”—an exercise machine that requires a user to pull on handles to perform a rowing motion against a selected resistance in order to strengthen the back muscles. The PTO considered the device obvious in light of a previously patented “Chest Press Apparatus for Exercising Regions of the Upper Body”—a chest press exercise machine on which a user pushes on handles to overcome a selected resistance. On what ground might this result be reversed on appeal? Discuss. [In re Gianelli, 739 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014)]
