Appeal No. 2002-0957 Page 5
Application No. 09/635,634
the entirety of a thumb. We find no error in the examiner’s determination that the space
defined between the recesses 22, 32 of Budd’s dish is of sufficient length to meet this
broad limitation. We also note that appellant’s first argument is not commensurate in
scope with the language of claim 1, which merely requires sufficient length of space
between the panels to rest on at least a portion of a forearm; the claim does not require
sufficient length of space to permit insertion of a forearm therebetween. In any event,
we agree with the examiner that the space between the recesses 22, 32 of Budd’s dish
is of sufficient length to rest on at least a portion, which could be as small as a single
point, of a forearm of a user. As for appellant’s second argument, while the
surrounding skirt might provide an impediment to the entire length of space defined
between the recesses 22, 32 resting on the forearm of a user, claim 1 is not so limiting.
From our perspective, the skirt would not prevent the space between the recesses 22,
32 from resting on a portion, which could be as small as a single point, of a user’s
forearm. For example, the dish is capable of being supported by a user such that the
skirt rests on one portion of the user’s forearm while a portion of the space between the
recesses rests on another portion of the user’s forearm.
In that we have found neither of appellant’s arguments persuasive of any error
on the part of the examiner in determining the subject matter of claim 1 to be
anticipated by Budd, we shall sustain this rejection.
We reach a similar conclusion with regard to the examiner’s rejection of claim 1
as being anticipated by Pratt. While Figure 3 of Pratt illustrates the lateral spacing at
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007