of the claim.  On this basis, Contour claimed that the only distinction between BA First and the 908 patent was the triangular shape of the headrest and that triangular shape is entirely arbitrary.  Floyd J rejected this argument holding that the triangular headrest "allows advantage to be taken of the triangular rearward space" so cannot be said to be arbitrary. The second obviousness attack was based on accepting the construction of the rearward space adopted by the Court of Appeal.  Citing the dicta of Lord Hoffmann in Conor v Angiotech [2008] UKHL 49 and adopting the structured approach in Pozzoli v BDMO [2007] EWCA Civ 588, Floyd held that it would not have been obvious to the skilled addressee to extend the seat into bed mode into the triangular space between the back of the seat and the cabin wall (the green section) which, in the BA First application, remained unused except for storage.  Contour had argued that this "lost space" would have been obvious to use.  But, as at the priority date, the fact that the invention was new and untried - as it was in this case - provided "strong prima facie evidence that the inventive concept was not obvious to those skilled in the art".  Floyd J stated that "It is a case where it is legitimate to ask why such a simple step, if obvious, was not taken by anyone else before the priority date." It followed that the obviousness and added matter attacks on the