Appeal No. 2001-2614
Application 09/506,576
thighs are placed on the baseplate 12 with the tray 16 in lap
position. Houle is used in this manner whether the device is
used by an operator sitting in a chair or by an operator on the
floor. Johnson on the other hand shows a table for a projector
with the typical tripod as the leg portions and an upright post
10 supporting the table or support 11. In our view there is no
suggestion or teaching for the combination of the tripod and
support of Johnson with the baseplate pedestal and tray of Houle.
It is apparent any combination of the tripod and support of
Johnson with Houle would destroy the ability in Houle for the
thighs of the operator to be interposed between baseplate 12 and
tray 16. For this reason, the combination of references would
not have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
We have further considered the disclosure of Boyer, but we
find therein no teaching or suggestion that would alleviate the
problems of the combination of Houle and Johnson.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.196(b) we enter the following
rejection.
Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Boyer. As an initial matter we construe the
means-plus-funciton limitation of claim 1 on appeal. The “means
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007