Appeal 2007-1331
Application 10/296,814
found that the claimed first and second axes can be co-linear such that Dixon’s
hinges allow the table top sections to rotate about first and second axes (Answer
4-5). We disagree. The hinges (23 and 24), as shown in Figure 4 of Dixon, allow
the first and second table top sections 21A and 21B to rotate relative to one another
about only a single, common axis (Findings of Fact 4, 5). As such, Dixon does not
disclose first, second, and third articulations coupling the table top sections 21A
and 21B for rotation relative to one another about first and second axes as claimed
(Finding of Fact 6). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 10, 13, 17, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dixon.
Rejection of claims 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Harris and Goddard
The Examiner found:
One would have been motivated to [to modify the table
unit of Harris such that the second articulation allows
relative motion between perpendicular first and second
axes] in view of the suggestion in Goddard that the
articulation provides a universal ball joint that units [sic,
unites] to [sic, two] elements for swinging movement in
planes perpendicular to one another and is capable of
withstanding hard use (Final Office Action 5).
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
that would provide three articulations allowing rotation of the Harris table elements
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013