Appeal No. 2004-2384
Application No. 10/161,365
cushion and the cradle to be interchangeable (Brief, page 6).
These arguments are not persuasive for reasons discussed above in
regard to the rejection under section 102(b).
Contrary to appellant’s argument that the reference “teaches
away” from the invention by disclosing “a unique, dedicated base to
support each different piece of furniture” (Brief, sentence
bridging pages 6-7), Desnoyer discloses the same rocking mechanism
for each of the cradle and ottoman cushion (see Figures 12 and 13;
also col. 2, ll. 46-48, and col. 5, ll. 40-45). The disclosure of
“variants” by Desnoyers does not “negate” a finding of motivation
(Brief, pages 7-8). Appellant’s “adaptation of a single
embodiment” (Brief, page 7) is the same as taught by Desnoyers,
namely the same base structure (or rocking mechanism) with either a
cradle or an ottoman cushion attached by removable fasteners to the
platform support of the base structure.
We determine that claim 1, as properly construed (see In re
Morris, supra), requires a base having a stationary stand (see
support arrangement 5 in Figures 2a-2c of Desnoyers), an
articulated support structure attached to the stand and having a
mounting platform, configured to impart an oscillating motion (see
the articulated structure set forth in Figures 2a-2c as well as
seating platform 22), the mounting platform configured for
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007