Appeal 2006-2020
Application 10/267,152
handles on the housing of Burris’ display device to facilitate grasping of the
display device by the operator to reposition or reorient the display device.
We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 1, and the rejections of claims 2-
9, 12, 14, and 15, which Appellants have not argued with any reasonable
specificity apart from claim 1.
Claims 10 and 13 recite that the first and second handles comprise
knobs. In rejecting these claims as unpatentable over Burris in view of
Rosen or in view of Crain or Yeh, further in view of Rosen, the Examiner
states that the use of a knob to articulate a flat panel or position a display as
an alternative to a U-shaped handle is notoriously well-known (Answer 8)
and contends that it therefore would have been obvious to use a knob for a
handle on Burris’ display device (Answer 6).
In this case, Appellants have not challenged the Examiner’s statement
that the use of a knob to articulate a flat panel or position a display as an
alternative to a U-shaped handle is notoriously well-known. Further,
Appellants have not challenged the Examiner’s determination that it would
have been obvious, in view of the known use of a knob in place of a handle
to articulate a flat panel or position a display, to use a knob for a handle on
Burris’ display device. Rather, Appellants merely point out that Rosen does
not disclose knobs (Br. 10).
In light of the above, we conclude that Appellants have not
demonstrated error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 13. We
therefore sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 13.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013