Appeal No. 2004-2384
Application No. 10/161,365
appeal is described by Desnoyers within the meaning of section
102(b)(Answer, page 3). We agree.
Additionally, the examiner finds that the limitations of
claims 10 and 16 have been described by Desnoyers within the
meaning of section 102(b), construing the “removably attached” term
of claims 10 and 16 as reading on the “threaded fasteners” taught
by Desnoyers (Answer, page 4-5).
Appellant argues that Desnoyers only discloses that threaded
fasteners can be used to secure a “seating platform 22" to the
rocking mechanism, with no disclosure or suggestion at all of
adaptation for removal and interchanging of component parts (Brief,
page 5). This argument is not persuasive. First, we note that
appellant is claiming a structure. All that the reference must
show or describe is the claimed structure, and this structure must
be capable of the adaptation, even if the reference does not
disclose or suggest such an adaptation. See In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Second, we note that the reference does disclose and suggest such
an adaptation, i.e., Desnoyers teaches that the same rocking
mechanism may be employed for cradles and ottoman cushions, with
both being attached to a mounting platform by easily removable
threaded fasteners (see Figures 12 and 13; col. 3, ll. 49-58).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007