Ex Parte NEVIN - Page 4




              Appeal No. 2002-0161                                                               Page 4                
              Application No. 09/348,615                                                                               


              Figure 4 embodiment of Lechman, notes that Lechman discloses a display (monitor 60)                      
              mounted in a recess (bore 52A) flush with a desk top (top surface 14 of work table or                    
              platform 12), with “a ledge 58A extending around the periphery of the bore just beneath                  
              the work table 12 for supporting the monitor” (see column 4, lines 1-5, of Lechman).                     
              According to the examiner (answer, page 3),                                                              
                            [a]nyone using the desk could easily lift the display and slide                            
                            it along the supporting peripheral walls and by resting the                                
                            display partly in the recess and against the ledge 56A.  Thus                              
                            providing a inclined viewing position.  Therefore the structure                            
                            shown in Figure 4 meets the Appellant’s claims.  The ability                               
                            of a person using the desk to move the display to an inclined                              
                            position and an upside down position is inherent to the                                    
                            structure shown in Figure 4.                                                               
                     We presume that the examiner means that the monitor 60 can be maintained in                       
              an inclined position and situated at least partly above the top surface 14 of the work                   
              table or platform 12 at one end, with top and bottom edges of the opposite end of the                    
              display supported, respectively, by a first of the peripheral walls 56A and a portion of                 
              the ledge 58A and with the rear surface of the monitor 60 supported by the edge at the                   
              intersection of the top surface 14 of the work table or platform 12 and the peripheral                   
              wall 56A opposite the first of the peripheral walls 56A.  We interpret the examiner’s                    
              remarks on page 2 of the final rejection as a determination that the monitor 60 is                       



                     2 (...continued)                                                                                  
              1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  It is not necessary that the reference teach what    
              the subject application teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e.,
              that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the reference.  Kalman v. Kimberly Clark
              Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).        





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007