Ex Parte Mattson - Page 4





               Appeal No. 2005-0121                                                                                                 
               Application No. 10/074,154                                                                                           

               has a planar or surface area substantially smaller in size than the planar or surface area of                        
               Murphy’s opaque top layer (mouse tracking area 20).  The examiner nonetheless submits that                           
                       Murphy [suggests] the number of compartments could be any (therefore could be                                
                       just one, see column 2 lines 60-61 and column 3 lines 33-36).  Hence, it would                               
                       have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention                          
                       to use only one tray with an area substantially equal to the area of the top surface                         
                       when only [the] storage tray for the notepad is needed by the user so as to                                  
                       increase the storage area for the notepad or other paper, simplify the                                       
                       manufacturing process and therefore reduce the cost.  It has been held to be                                 
                       within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary as a                            
                       matter of obvious engineering choice [answer, page 6; also see page 7 in the                                 
                       answer].                                                                                                     
                       Murphy, however, would not have suggested modifying the mouse pad and item holder                            
               disclosed therein so as to have only one compartment and tray.  The portions of the Murphy                           
               disclosure cited by the examiner simply do not support a conclusion to the contrary.  Instead,                       
               Murphy actually touts the benefits of a mouse pad and item holder having a plurality of                              
               compartments for holding a variety of different items.  Moreover, even if the artisan would have                     
               found it obvious to provide the Murphy mouse pad and holder with only a single compartment                           
               and tray which holds paper, the reference provides no suggestion to size such tray and paper so                      
               as to result in a surface on which information is written having a planar or surface area                            
               substantially equal in size to the planar or surface area of the opaque top layer.                                   
                       Hence, Murphy does not justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between                        
               the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 5 and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a                 
               whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary                         


                                                                 4                                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007