Ex Parte Bufkin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 24, 2007

10724958 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 24, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte WILLIAM J. BUFKIN
_____________

Appeal 2007-1857
Application 10/724,958
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: August 24, 2007
_______________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, LINDA E. HORNER, and
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant appeals from a rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-20.
Claim 11, which is the only other pending claim, stands objected to by the
Examiner as dependent from a rejected claim but allowable if rewritten in
independent form.
THE INVENTION
The Appellant claims an integrated arm support and mouse table for
attachment to a chair armrest. Claim 1 is illustrative:

Appeal 2007-1857
Application 10/724,958

1. An integrated arm support and mouse table
configured to be attached to a chair having an arm
rest and a back, comprising:

a. a mounting unit, including attachment means
for attaching said mounting unit to said arm
rest of said chair, and a horizontal pivot
joint;

b. a pivot bracket, pivotally attached to said
mounting unit by said horizontal pivot joint,
wherein said pivot bracket further includes an
angled pivot joint;

c. an arm support, pivotally attached to said pivot
bracket by said angled pivot joint, wherein said
arm support includes
i. an arm rest cover, configured to fit over
said arm rest of said chair, and
ii. a table attached to said arm rest cover,
and being positioned distal from
said back of said chair; and

d. wherein said arm rest cover opens into a
forearm channel shaped to receive a forearm of
said user.

THE REFERENCES
Wilson US 5,135,190 Aug. 4, 1992
Dearing US 5,490,710 Feb. 13, 1996
Wu US 6,074,012 Jun. 13, 2000
Roberts US 6,827,405 B1 Dec. 7, 2004
(filed Sep. 12, 2003)

2

Appeal 2007-1857
Application 10/724,958

THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wilson; claims 3, 5 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wilson in view of Wu; claims 10 and 12-16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wilson in view of Wu and Roberts;
and claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wilson in view of
Wu and Dearing.
OPINION
The rejections are affirmed as to claims 1, 6, 10, 15 and 17, and
reversed as to claims 2-5, 7-9, 12-14, 16 and 18-20.
Wilson discloses “an articulating ergonomic support system for an
individual’s forearm, wrist and palm of the hand” (col. 1, ll. 11-13). “The
device can be attached to a desk, a computer keyboard tray, arms of a chair,
a pedestal base, and other support mechanisms” (col. 3, ll. 5-7). A user’s
forearm is supported in a saddle (22) that has a concave portion (28) and is
attached to the top portion (14) of a base (12) (col. 4, ll. 27-31). “The
concave top portion 28 of saddle 22 is formed in such a way that it cradles
the user’s limb and prevents the user’s limb from sliding off which could
result if that portion of saddle 22 was flat” (col. 4, ll. 43-46). The system
includes a number of swivels that provide an infinite number of variations in
the position of limb support (col. 7, l. 59 – col. 8, l. 13). In one embodiment
an inverted spoon-shaped member (116) supports the hand and wrist of the
user (col. 9, ll. 8-12). The inverted spoon-shaped member comprises an
elongated tongue-like wrist-supporting arm (118), one end of which is
pivotally attached to the base and the other end of which has a cupped
3

Appeal 2007-1857
Application 10/724,958

platform (120) extending therefrom that conforms to the palm of the user’s
hand (col. 9, ll. 12-24, 53-58).
Wu discloses an adjustable armrest having a rotatable pad (4)
disposed on a recess portion (12) of an armrest seat (1) (col. 2, ll. 22-23).
Roberts discloses an armrest that is attached to the arm of a chair
using brackets (18) and, optionally, straps (20) (col. 1, ll. 61-67).
Dearing discloses an armchair having a writing tablet (16) with a flat
recess (64) in its upper surface for supporting a computer mouse pad (26)
(col. 3, ll. 48-50; fig. 2).
Claims 1 and 17
The Appellant argues that Wilson’s concave-shaped saddle is not
shaped to receive a forearm of the user (Br. 10). 1 Wilson’s disclosure that
the concave portion of the saddle is formed in such a way that it cradles the
user’s forearm and prevents the user’s forearm from falling off (col. 4, ll. 43-
46; col. 9, ll. 8-12, 59-64) indicates that the concave portion is shaped to
receive a user’s forearm.
We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection of
claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of that claim and claim 17 that
stands or falls therewith (Br. 7).

Claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20

1 The pages in the Brief are unnumbered. The page numbers referred to
herein have been provided by the Board.
4

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

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

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

Appeal 2007-1857
Application 10/724,958

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

vsh

PENNINGTON, MOORE, WILKINSON,
BELL & DUNBAR, P.A.
POST OFFICE BOX 10095
TALLAHASSEE FL 32302-2095
8