Appeal Number: 2006-1996
Application Number: 10/459,679
ISSUES
The following issues are before us: whether claims 1, 7 and 8 lack novelty
over Randolph; whether claims 1-3 and 6-8 lack novelty over D’Souza; whether
claims 9 and 16 are unpatentable over Randolph; and whether claims 4 and 5 are
unpatentable over D’Souza in view of Lin.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Randolph is directed to an article of furniture called a computer workstation.
The examiner directs our attention to docking station 200. As shown in Figure 22,
the docking station pivots about pivot 202 so that a laptop computer 208 may be
inserted therein. Afterwards, the docking station is pivoted to a vertical position
wherein the laptop computer can be locked by lock 210 into a secured position.
D’Souza discloses a drawer 102 in which a laptop computer 106 may be
placed. At the rear of the drawer are one or more connectors 136 which provide
AC power, network connectivity, and connections to external peripheral devices
such as a keyboard, an external drive, or a printer. D’Souza mentions (col. 3, ll.
45-53) that the drawer 102 is much like a pencil drawer found in conventional
desks and may be provided as an integral part of the desk customized for users of
portable computers.
Lin also discloses a drawer or tray which is secured to a computer desk in a
retractable manner. The tray of Lin has a large upper surface which can support a
large multimedia keyboard. Additionally, a lateral mouse pad is further provided.
Both D’Souza and Lin teach a wrist pad for typing comfort.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The prior art may anticipate a claimed invention, and thereby render it
non-novel, either expressly or inherently. In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig.,301 F.3d
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013