Appeal 2007-1331
Application 10/296,814
relative to one another about two separate axes (Appeal Br. 6-10). We agree with
the Appellants.
Harris teaches that the table sections 22, 24 are connected along their
adjacent longitudinal edges by only a single articulation (hinge assembly 26) such
that the table elements rotate relative to one another about a single axis (Findings
of Fact 7, 8). Harris does not disclose first, second, and third articulations coupling
table sections 22 and 24 for rotation relative to one another about first and second
axes, nor does Harris suggest any reason to modify its table system 10 to add
articulations that would allow the table sections 22 and 24 to rotate relative to one
another about two different axes (Findings of Fact 9, 10).
Goddard teaches generally a configuration for making a universal joint, and
provides no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would add this universal
joint in lieu of a single hinge element (Findings of Fact 11, 12). We see no reason,
absent hindsight, why one would have used the universal joint of Goddard in the
table of Harris in such a way to allow the table elements of Harris to rotate relative
to one another about two separate axes. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Harris and Goddard.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013