Appeal No. 2004-2384
Application No. 10/161,365
attachment of a cradle (i.e., capable of being attached by at least
one removable fastener to a cradle; see Figure 12, and col. 3, ll.
55-58), and an ottoman cushion configured for attachment (i.e.,
capable of being attached by at least one removable fastener; see
Figure 13 and col. 3, ll. 55-58). Note that claim 1 only
positively recites an ottoman cushion but does not require a cradle
(only that the mounting platform is “configured” or capable of
attachment to a cradle “whereby” the cradle “can be” attached to
and detached from the mounting platform). See In re Schreiber,
supra.
From the claim construction discussed above, we determine that
each and every limitation of claim 1 on appeal is described by
Desnoyers within the meaning of section 102(b). Since anticipation
or lack of novelty is the epitome or ultimate of obviousness, we
therefore affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-
9, 14 and 19 which stand or fall with claim 1, under section 103(a)
over Desnoyers. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ
569, 571 (CCPA 1982).
C. Summary
We affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 10-13 and 15-18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Desnoyers.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007