Appeal No. 95-2189
Application 08/104,872
The examiner states that the elbows of a child might
land on Hassel’s support 30.
Even if a small child’s elbows rested on Hassel’s
wrist support 30, there would be no support from the elbow to
a mouse in the child’s hand. Rather, the forearm would be
suspended over the gap between wrist support 30 and keyboard
platform assembly 20 as seen in Figure 1.
The examiner identifies no teaching or suggestion in
the cited prior art for a surface of support for a user from
the elbow to the mouse in combination with an adjustable
frame. Therefore, the rejection of claims 2-14 and 17 for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not sustained.
CONCLUSION
The indefiniteness rejection of claims 2-9 and 17 is
not sustained. The obviousness rejection of claims 2-14 and
17 is not sustained.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007