Ex Parte NEVIN - Page 3




             Appeal No. 2002-0161                                                                Page 3                
             Application No. 09/348,615                                                                                


             support of the rejections and to the brief (Paper No. 14) for the appellant's arguments                   
             thereagainst.                                                                                             
                                                      OPINION                                                          
                    In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                    
             the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                 
             respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.  As a consequence                     
             of our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                                   
             Claim 13, the sole independent claim on appeal, reads as follows:                                         
                            13.  An article of furniture comprising a base, a work surface                             
                            fixedly mounted to said base, having a recess with given                                   
                            length and width dimensions, a solid state computer display                                
                            with a viewing screen, said display having a front surface                                 
                            comprising the screen and a substantially planar rear                                      
                            surface having substantially said given length and width                                   
                            dimensions and means for mounting said display for                                         
                            movement relative to said work surface between a storage                                   
                            position, wherein said display is within said recess and said                              
                            rear display surface is substantially co-planar with said                                  
                            work surface, and a viewing position, wherein said display                                 
                            is inclined relative to and situated at least partially above                              
                            said work surface.                                                                         
                    Appellant contends that the means limitation, which we have italicized above for                   
             emphasis, is not met by Lechman and that the subject matter of claim 13 is therefore                      
             not anticipated2 by Lechman.  On page 3 of the answer, the examiner, referring to the                     

                    2 Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under 
             the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention.  RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital 
             Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  In other words, there must be  
             no difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of        
             ordinary skill in the field of the invention.  Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d
                                                                                             (continued...)            





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007