Appeal 2007-1857
Application 10/724,958
Claims 10 and 15
Claim 10, which depends from claim 1, and claim 15, which depends
from claim 6, require that the mounting unit is attached to the armrest by a
locking strap.
The Appellant argues that a mounting unit including a strap looped
around the chair armrest and locked into a lock on the mounting unit are not
found or suggested in the prior art (Br. 15), but the Appellant provides no
supporting explanation. The Examiner argues that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Roberts’ locking strap with
Wilson’s mounting unit to provide an arm support that is easily and
selectively attached to an arm of a chair (Ans. 5). The Appellant has not
explained why the Examiner is in error.
Hence, we affirm the rejection of claims 10 and 15.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Wilson is affirmed as to claims 1 and 6 and
reversed as to claims 2, 4, 7, 9 and 20. The rejection of claims 3, 5 and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wilson in view of Wu is reversed. The rejection
of claims 10 and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wilson in view of Wu
and Roberts is affirmed as to claims 10 and 15 and reversed as to claims 12-
14 and 16. The rejection of claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Wilson in view of Wu and Dearing is affirmed as to claim 17 and reversed
as to claims 18 and 19.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013