Appeal No. 2001-0339 Page 6
Application No. 09/250,583
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Boschelli mat in the manner proposed by the
examiner. This being the case, the teachings of the applied references fail to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in independent
claim 1, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or, it follows, of dependent claims 7
and 8.
Independent claims 14 and 19 recite the apparatus of the invention in different terms,
but both require that the mat be made solely of a textile material (terry cloth in claim 19),
and that there be suction cups on a first major surface of the mat for releasably attaching it
to the bathtub. These claims also stand rejected on the basis of Boschelli and Pugh, and
the rejection is defective for the same reasons as we explained above with regard to claim
1. The rejection of claims 14-16 and 19 is not sustained.
Method claim 17 stands rejected on the basis of the references applied against the
other claims, taken further with Shiner, which teaches draping a bath mat made of rubber-
covered metal over the lip of a bathtub, and Edmands, which teaches that it is known to
wash a textile bath mat. The method of claim 14 includes the steps of placing a flexible
absorbent mat made solely of textile material over the lip of a bathtub, releasably attaching
it thereto by means of suction cups attached to the textile material, engaging it with a skin
surface of a user for support and balance while entering and/or exiting the tub, then
removing it from the tub and washing it in a clothes washing machine. As was the case
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007