Appeal No. 2002-0161 Page 8
Application No. 09/348,615
We turn now to the examiner’s rejection of claim 6, which depends from claim 13
and further recites that the mounting means comprises a bracket having a means for
pivotally connecting the bracket to the article of furniture and means for pivotally
connecting the bracket to the display, as being unpatentable over Lechman in view of
Yamaguchi. The examiner cites Yamaguchi for its teaching of the use of pivotal
brackets for providing multiple positions for a monitor (television receiver 9), including a
“normal” position (Figure 3) in which the display surface of the television receiver faces
downward and a position (Figure 1) in which the display surface of the television
receiver is upright or inclined and visible either from the front or rear seats, as desired.
According to the examiner (final rejection, page 4), it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art “to have modified Lechman with pivotal brackets in a
furniture recess for the purpose of providing multiple positions of the monitor in view of
Yamaguchi.” We do not agree.
As mentioned above, Lechman provides no teaching or suggestion to position
the monitor 60 in either a stored position with the display surface facing downward and
the rear surface co-planar with the work surface or a viewing position wherein the
monitor is at least partially above the work surface. Rather, Lechman’s work station is
designed to have the monitor positioned either below or flush with the top surface of the
work station (column 2, lines 23-25). Thus, we find no suggestion in the applied
references to provide a pivotal bracket support structure of the type disclosed by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007