Appeal 2007-1331
Application 10/296,814
Rejection of claims 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Harris and Goddard and further in view of Baccili, Kent, or
Yoda.
None of the remaining references cited by the Examiner (Baccili, Kent, or
Yoda) provide a reason to modify the table of Harris in the manner claimed. In
particular, Baccili does not teach or suggest first, second, and third articulations
coupling table elements 58 and 60 for rotation relative to one another about first
and second axes (Finding of Fact 13), and neither Kent nor Yoda teaches or
suggests a table having first and second table elements (Findings of Fact 14, 15).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
of claims 12, 14, and 15 as unpatentable over Harris, Goddard, and Baccili, of
claims 18 and 22 as unpatentable over Harris, Goddard, and Kent, and of claim 19
as unpatentable over Harris, Goddard, and Yoda.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10, 13, 17, 20 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dixon and erred in rejecting under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 25, and 26 as unpatentable over
Harris and Goddard, claims 12, 14, and 15 as unpatentable over Harris, Goddard,
and Baccili, claims 18 and 22 as unpatentable over Harris, Goddard, and Kent, and
claim 19 as unpatentable over Harris, Goddard, and Yoda.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013