Appeal No. 2002-0957 Page 3
Application No. 09/635,634
The following rejections are before us for review.
(1) Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Budd.
(2) Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by De
Murguiondo.
(3) Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Pratt.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 17) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 16 and 18) 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 claim, 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.
At the outset, we note that the limitation in claim 1 “panels extending from the
common edge provide a sufficient length of space therebetween to rest on at least a
portion of a forearm extended by a user therebetween and to accommodate at least a
portion of a thumb of a hand of the user,” the only claim limitation argued by appellant
not to be met by the applied prior art, does not require a space wide or long enough to
accommodate any portion of a forearm within the space. Rather, the claim language
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007