Appeal No. 2001-0287 Page 6
Application No. 09/107,056
which would have suggested the arbitrary picking and choosing
of elements from each necessary to arrive at the claimed
invention.
Cullinan, the third reference relied upon by the examiner
in rejecting claim 10, discloses a platform pivotably attached
to the door of a computer enclosure with what appears to be a
fixed pivot point and a brace means 60 comprising two
collapsible braces. We find nothing in the teachings of
Cullinan which overcomes the deficiencies in the combination
of Frank and Swanson discussed above. Accordingly, we shall
not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 10 or of claims
11 and 13-17 which depend from claim 10.
Mulvaney also provides no cure for the deficiencies of
Frank in view of Swanson and Cullinan discussed above.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 12, which depends from claim 10, or of independent claim
19, which includes all of the limitations of claim 10
discussed above, with the exception that the slot of claim 19
is recited as having a straight section rather than an
elongate section.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007