Ex Parte NEVIN - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2002-0161                                                               Page 2                
              Application No. 09/348,615                                                                               


                                                   BACKGROUND                                                          
                     The appellant's invention relates to a computer desk or table having a built-in,                  
              concealable, position adjustable solid state display which, in the storage position, forms               
              a portion of the work surface of the desk or table (specification, page 1).  Claim 13,                   
              which is reproduced in the Opinion section of this decision, is illustrative of the                      
              invention.                                                                                               
                     The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting                
              the appealed claims:                                                                                     
              Lechman                                  5,651,594                   Jul.  29, 1997                      
              Yamaguchi (Japanese Kokai)               404063739                   Feb. 28, 19921                      

                     The following rejections are before us for review.                                                
                     Claims 2-5 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated                    
              by Lechman.                                                                                              
                     Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                       
              Lechman in view of Yamaguchi.                                                                            
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                     
              the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final                       
              rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 12 and 15) for the examiner's complete reasoning in                     



                     1 An English language translation of this reference, prepared by the Patent and Trademark Office, 
              is appended hereto.                                                                                      





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007