Appeal No. 2001-1609 Page 7
Application No. 09/031,778
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 11 to 13, 15 to 18, 20 and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 20 and 21
The decision of the examiner to reject dependent claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed since the examiner has not asserted that the above-noted limitations of
parent claim 18 would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 11 to 13 and 15 to 18
Claim 11 reads as follows:
A mobile workstation comprising:
(a) work surface having a top surface for carrying electrical equipment and a
bottom surface;
(b) a pedestal for supporting said work surface;
(c) means housed in said pedestal for adjusting the height of said work
surface; and
(d) a power supply for supplying power to the electrical equipment attached
to the bottom surface, the power supply providing a counterbalance for
counterbalancing weight of the electrical equipment as the height of said work
surface is adjusted.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007