Appeal No. 95-2189
Application 08/104,872
Second, the examiner states that it is not clear if
the flat pad is part of the surface. We agree with appellant
that the language, even if inelegant, sufficiently defines a
platform means with an upper end for defining a surface and
lower end for providing a flat pad. Appeal Brief at 5.
Third, the examiner states that both the surface and
flat pad are recited in claim 15 as parts of the
“predetermined area” and that claim 17 has the same problem.
We are unable to find such a problem in claim 17.
Thus, the rejection of claims 2-9 and 17 for
indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is not
sustained.
Obviousness
Appellants argue inter alia that even if the
reference teachings were combined in the manner proposed by
the examiner, it would not result in the claimed invention.
Appellants point out that the claimed invention requires a
surface of support for a user “from said elbow to said mouse”
and yet none of the references teaches such a surface.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007