Appeal No. 2004-2384
Application No. 10/161,365
to a mounting platform (Brief, pages 3-4). Appellant states that
the claims stand or fall together (Brief, page 4). Accordingly, we
select one claim from each group of rejected claims and decide the
grounds of rejection in this appeal on the basis of these claims
alone. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003); and In re McDaniel, 293
F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Representative independent claims 15 and 16 are reproduced below:
15. An articulated support structure adaptable for attachment
of a cradle or ottoman cushion to a mounting platform of the
support structure, and at least one disengageable fastener at an
interface of the cradle or ottoman cushion with the mounting
platform of the articulated support structure.
16. An articulated cradle assembly comprising:
a base having a stationary stand and an articulated support
structure attached to the stand and having a mounting platform
attached to the articulated support structure, the articulated
support structure configured to impart an oscillating motion to
the mounting platform relative to the base, and
a cradle having a planar bottom which is removably attached
to the mounting platform of the support structure.
The examiner relies on Desnoyers et al. (Desnoyers), U.S.
Patent No. 6,092,870, issued Jul. 25, 2000, as the sole evidence of
unpatentability (Answer, page 2, ¶(9)). Claims 10-13 and 15-18
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Desnoyers
(Answer, page 2, incorporating the rejection as set forth in the
final Office action dated Nov. 10, 2003). Claims 1-9, 14 and 19
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007