Appeal No. 97-0972
Application 08/399,571
fairly construed to be a “slit.” Moreover, even if the opening
22 were construed to be a slit, these claims further require that
the slit provide access through an opening for closely receiving
the armrest support. Clearly, no such structure is taught by
Gardels. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 4, 5 and 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Gardels.
Turning next to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6 and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Reyes, it is the
appellants’ contention that
Reyes teaches a folding book support including in one
embodiment, among other things, a support leg 16 having
a first end 38 for engaging a main support member 12
and a second end 44 defining an inverted “Y” shape for
stability. However, Reyes does not anticipate an
elongated member “adapted to extend between an armrest
and a seat member.” [Brief, pages 9 and 10.]
The appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. As the
appellants recognize, in Reyes the “optional” support leg 16 has
a first end 38 and a second end 44 which diverges into two
spaced-apart angular portions, thereby forming a generally Y-
shaped configuration (see Fig. 3). These spaced-apart angular
portions can be considered to form “wings” as broadly claimed.
Clearly the support leg 16 has the inherent capability to hold
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007