Ex parte Maynard Jr.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 26, 2001

08772840 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 26, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte STUART T. MAYNARD JR.
____________
Appeal No. 1999-1995
Application No. 08/772,840
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before DIXON, GROSS, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 72, 73, and 75 through 77. Claim 74 is
objected as dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Appellant's invention relates to a support for an
appendage of an operator at a work station. Claim 72 is
illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
72. An apparatus for supporting a human operator appendage at
a work station and allowing support of said appendage during
motions imparted generally in front of said operator both
Appeal No. 1999-1995
Application No. 08/772,840
2
laterally and forward and back in relation to said operator
wherein
at least one roller is mounted on an axle,
said axle is mounted on at least one bracket in proximity
to said work station,
said roller is enabled to rotate and slide upon said
axle,
said appendage is engaged to bear generally on an upper
cylindrical surface of said roller, during any movement.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Culver 4,712,101 Dec. 08,
1987
Avila 4,799,049 Jan. 17,
1989
Claim 72 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Culver.
Claims 73 and 75 through 77 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Culver in view of Avila.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed February 8, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
Appeal No. 1999-1995
Application No. 08/772,840
3
No. 10, filed January 16, 1999) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims
72, 73, and 75 through 77.
Independent claim 72 recites "[a]n apparatus for
supporting a human operator appendage at a work station and
allowing support of said appendage during motions imparted
generally in front of said operator" (underlinining added for
emphasis). The examiner admits (Answer, page 4) that "Culver
fails to teach explicitly that his computer input apparatus
can be used for supporting a human operator appendage at a
work station." Nonetheless, the examiner asserts (Answer,
page 4) that "the action of pressing on the bar of the Culver
device is a deliberate application of a certain amount of
downward force. Whether the bar switch or sensor has been
enable [sic, enabled] or not is of no consequence. The bar
Appeal No. 1999-1995
Application No. 08/772,840
4
Appellant (Brief, page 4) points to column 9, lines 5-10,
of Culver as evidence that the cylinder cannot be a support
for an appendage. Specifically, Culver states (column 8, line
68-
column 9, line 5) that "a downward push by the hand on
cylinder 64, on shaft 62, or on either of a pair of end pads
165 (FIG. 3) coupled to frame 68 is sufficient to actuate
switch 156, the switch being normally open and is closed when
cylinder 64 moves downwardly." In other words, pressure on
the cylinder enables the mouse input circuit. For the
cylinder to "support" the user's hand or arm, the cylinder
must be able to withstand a certain amount of downward force
or pressure without actuating switch 156. Thus, we agree with
appellant that Culver appears to teach away from using the
cylinder to support a user's appendage, and any other
interpretation of Culver would be unreasonable.
In addition, appellant (Brief, page 4) points to Culver's
use of an additional element on which to rest the palm of the
hand as further evidence that Culver's cylinder is not to be
used for support for a user's appendage. In particular,
Appeal No. 1999-1995
Application No. 08/772,840
5
Culver (column 10, lines 63-64) adds palm rest 262 "to provide
additional comfort for the user of the system." Thus, Culver
specifically provides for support of a user's appendage
separate from the cylinder. Consequently, we find that
Culver's cylinder does not support a user's appendage.
Therefore, the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness, and we will not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 72.
As to claims 73 and 75 through 77, the examiner adds
Avila to Culver to reject the claims. However, Avila fails to
cure the deficiency of Culver noted above. Therefore, we
cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 73 and 75
through 77.
Appeal No. 1999-1995
Application No. 08/772,840
6
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 72, 73, and
75 through 77 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-1995
Application No. 08/772,840
7
AG/RWK
Appeal No. 1999-1995
Application No. 08/772,840
8
STUART TYRUS MAYNARD JR
12 LOOKOUT EAST
ASHEVILLE, NC 28805