Appeal No. 2004-2384
Application No. 10/161,365
stand or fall with claim 15, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Desnoyers.
B. The Rejection under § 103(a)
The examiner finds that Desnoyers discloses all limitations of
the claims in this rejection with the exception of the number of
fasteners and the orientation of the cradle (final Office action
dated Nov. 10, 2003, page 3). The examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time
of appellant’s invention to vary the number of fasteners, depending
on the security and safety desired for the structure by the
artisan, as well as the orientation of the cradle, since the
rocking mechanism would function equally well in any orientation
(id.).
We select claim 1 as representative of the claims in this
rejection, and decide this ground of rejection on the basis of this
claim alone (see the Brief, page 4; 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003)).
We note that claim 1 only requires “at least one removable
fastener” and does not require any particular orientation of the
cradle (see claims 4 and 9 on appeal).
Appellant argues that Desnoyers only teaches the use of L-
shaped brackets to secure the seating platform to the support
structure and fails to teach or suggest configuring the ottoman
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007