Ex parte Stanley et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 13, 1998

08104872 (B.P.A.I. May. 13, 1998)

Application for patent filed August 10, 1993.1
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCE
_____________
Ex parte CAROL A. J. STANLEY
and MARGARET H. CHRISTENSEN
_____________
Appeal No. 95-2189
Application 08/104,8721
____________
HEARD: MAY 5, 1998
____________
Before HAIRSTON, TORCZON and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
2-14 and 17. Claims 15 and 16 are the other claims remaining
Appeal No. 95-2189
Application 08/104,872
-2-
in the application, but applicant does not contest their
rejection.
Claim 17 reads as follows:
17. A device for use with a computer mouse
comprising:
platform means for defining a surface for movement
of a computer mouse thereon and including an upper end for
defining said surface and a lower end for providing a flat pad
for locating one elbow of a user when the user is positioning
a computer mouse on said surface;
support means for supporting said platform means in
an operable position and being adapted to adjustably incline
said platform means with respect to the horizontal to adjust
the orientation of said surface with respect to said pad and
to provide a surface of support for a user from said elbow to
said mouse; and
frame means mounted on said platform means for
defining a predetermined area in said platform means surface
for limiting movement of said mouse to said predetermined
area, said frame means including a rectangular frame sized to
define said predetermined area and guide rails for adjustable
movement of said frame with respect to a location on said
platform means, said frame being adjustable to vary the
distance between said surface and said flat pad to vary the
length of said surface of support to accommodate a specific
user.
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Appeal No. 95-2189
Application 08/104,872
-3-
Broos 4,369,439 Jan. 18,
1983
Hassel et al. (Hassel) 5,219,136 June 15,
1993
Nassimbene, E.G., “Mouse/Keyboard Concept Incorporating Unique
Devices for Controlling CRT Display Cursors”, IBM Technical
Disclosure Bulletin, March 1985, pages 6299-6305.
OPINION
Claims 2-9 and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicant regards as the invention. Claims 2-17 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hassel in
view of Broos and Nassimbene.
Indefiniteness
First, the examiner states that it is not clear how
an upper end of the surface defines the surface. In light of
the disclosure, we find the language sufficiently definite.
An upper end of a surface may help define a surface and we
detect no ambiguity.
Appeal No. 95-2189
Application 08/104,872
-4-
Second, the examiner states that it is not clear if
the flat pad is part of the surface. We agree with appellant
that the language, even if inelegant, sufficiently defines a
platform means with an upper end for defining a surface and
lower end for providing a flat pad. Appeal Brief at 5.
Third, the examiner states that both the surface and
flat pad are recited in claim 15 as parts of the
“predetermined area” and that claim 17 has the same problem.
We are unable to find such a problem in claim 17.
Thus, the rejection of claims 2-9 and 17 for
indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is not
sustained.
Obviousness
Appellants argue inter alia that even if the
reference teachings were combined in the manner proposed by
the examiner, it would not result in the claimed invention.
Appellants point out that the claimed invention requires a
surface of support for a user “from said elbow to said mouse”
and yet none of the references teaches such a surface.
Appeal No. 95-2189
Application 08/104,872
-5-
The examiner states that the elbows of a child might
land on Hassel’s support 30.
Even if a small child’s elbows rested on Hassel’s
wrist support 30, there would be no support from the elbow to
a mouse in the child’s hand. Rather, the forearm would be
suspended over the gap between wrist support 30 and keyboard
platform assembly 20 as seen in Figure 1.
The examiner identifies no teaching or suggestion in
the cited prior art for a surface of support for a user from
the elbow to the mouse in combination with an adjustable
frame. Therefore, the rejection of claims 2-14 and 17 for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not sustained.
CONCLUSION
The indefiniteness rejection of claims 2-9 and 17 is
not sustained. The obviousness rejection of claims 2-14 and
17 is not sustained.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Appeal No. 95-2189
Application 08/104,872
-6-
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
RICHARD L. TORCZON ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Eugene E. Renz, Jr.
P.O. Box 2056
205 North Monroe Street
Media, PA 19063-9056