Appeal 2007-1331
Application 10/296,814
ISSUES
The Appellants contend that Dixon does not anticipate the claimed invention
because it does not disclose a table unit having three articulations for rotation of
two table elements relative to one another about first and second axes, as recited in
claim 10 (See e.g., Appeal Br. 5). The Examiner contends that Dixon shows the
claimed articulations because Dixon has two articulations between the table
elements, and each of these articulations rotates about co-linear axes (Answer 4-5).
The anticipation issue before us is whether Dixon discloses a table unit having
“first, second and third articulations coupling said first and second table elements
for rotation relative to one another about first and second axes.”
The Appellants contend that Harris and Goddard do not render the subject
matter of claim 10 obvious because only one articulation in Harris allows the table
elements to rotate “relative to one another” and nothing in Goddard discloses or
provides motivation to use its universal joint in the table unit of Harris in a manner
which would provide three articulations allowing relative rotation of the Harris
table elements relative to one another about two separate axes (Appeal Br. 6-10).
The issue before us is whether the combined teachings of Harris and Goddard
would have rendered obvious the subject matter of claim 10.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013