Appeal No. 2004-2384
Application No. 10/161,365
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Desnoyers (id. at page 3).
We affirm both rejections on appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the Answer and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 102(b)
The examiner finds that Desnoyers discloses an articulated
support structure (as shown in solid lines in Figures 2a, 2b, and
2c) with a mounting platform 64 (see Figures 3a and 3b) for
attachment of a cradle (see Figure 12) or an ottoman cushion (see
Figure 13) by means of threaded fasteners at an interface of the
cradle or ottoman cushion with the mounting platform (see
Desnoyers, col. 3, ll. 56-58)(Answer, page 3). The examiner has
construed the claim term “disengageable fastener” as including the
threaded fasteners of Desnoyers since these threaded fasteners are
removable, as with a screwdriver, and thus “disengageable” (Answer,
pages 3-4). Since appellant has stated that the claims stand or
fall together as grouped (Brief, page 4), the examiner has selected
claim 15 as the broadest claim, with the remaining claims in this
rejection standing or falling with this claim (Answer, page 3; see
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003)). In view of the foregoing findings,
the examiner states that every limitation recited in claim 15 on
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007