Appeal 2007-1857
Application 10/724,958
wrist channel that is both padded and rotatable with respect to the armrest”
(Ans. 7). Claim 2, from which claims 3 and, indirectly, claims 5, 8, 13
and 19 depend, requires a table that is separated from an armrest cover by a
vertical offset. As discussed above regarding the rejection of claim 2,
Wilson’s arm 118 is not separated from an armrest by a vertical offset, and
Wilson’s inverted spoon-shaped member having a cupped platform (120) is
not a table. Nor is Wu’s pad (4) a table.
The rejection of claims 3, 5, 8, 13 and 19, therefore, is reversed.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and requires that when the upper
surface of the pivot bracket is in a horizontal orientation, the angled pivot
joint is angularly offset from the armrest.
The Appellant argues that the limitation in claim 6 is not shown in
Wilson (Br. 14), but the Appellant does not provide a supporting
explanation. The Examiner argues that the pivots in Wilson’s figure 4 meet
that limitation (Ans. 8), and the Appellant does not explain why the
Examiner is in error.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 6.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013