Appeal 2007-1857
Application 10/724,958
Claim 2, its dependent claims 4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16 and 18, and claim 20
require a table that is separated from an arm rest cover by a vertical offset.
The Examiner argues that the arm portion (118) of Wilson’s inverted
spoon-shaped member (116) is flat and that the cupped platform (120) of
Wilson’s spoon-shaped member is vertically offset from the top portion (14)
of the base (12) (Ans. 5-6). The Examiner argues that a table is a smooth
flat slab fixed on legs or is something that resembles a table, and that
Wilson’s inverted spoon-shaped member resembles a table. See id. The flat
portion (118) of Wilson’s spoon-shaped member is not separated from the
base by a vertical offset (fig. 11), and Wilson’s cupped platform (120) does
not resemble a smooth flat slab and, therefore, is not a table. Regarding
claims 12, 14, 16 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner does
not argue that Wilson, Wu, Roberts and Dearing would have fairly suggested
a table vertically offset from an armrest cover to one of ordinary skill in the
art (Office Action mailed Apr. 7, 2005, p. 5-6; Ans. 8-9).
Hence, we reverse the rejection of claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18
and 20.
Claims 3, 5, 8, 13 and 19
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and requires that the vertical offset
opens into a wrist channel to receive a wrist of the user and that the forearm
channel and the wrist channel are joined. Claims 5, 8, 13 and 19 depend
from claim 3.
The Examiner argues that “the motivation to combine Wilson in view
of Wu is gleaned from the teachings of Wu that the wrist channel improves
upon Wilson[’s] easily adjustable armrest by including a vertically offset
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013