Appeal No. 2000-1455
Application 08/911,913
utilize a TPE as the foamed plastic of the known elastic mat
disclosed by Hausch, in order to obtain the art-recognized
advantages thereof.
It is not clear whether “back injection” of the TPE onto
the nonwoven fabric as recited in claim 1 would be inclusive
of the coating process disclosed by Hausch , but in any event, 6
assuming that it would not, it appears that the prior art mat
described by Hausch (as modified in view of the Handbook)
would have essentially the same structure and characteristics
as the mat recited in claim 1. Appellants have the burden of 7
proving that it would not. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,
195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
Remand to the Examiner
The application is remanded to the examiner to determine
whether claims 2, 4, 19 and 20 should be rejected as
unpatentable over Hausch in view of the Handbook, alone or in
view of other prior art.
6 In their brief (page 4, line 21; page 5, line 23; page
6, lines 6 and 7) appellants refer to their claimed TPE as
“back-sprayed” rather then “back-injected.”
7 Claim 1 does not require the suction cups to be an
integral part of the carrier.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007