Appeal No. 2003-1615
Application No. 09/274,639
lateral edges 12, 14. Claim 7, for example, recites that
“the mat comprises a sheet of mounting material having
opposing lateral edges substantially parallel to each other,
and opposing end edges substantially parallel to each other,
and each of the opposing end edges being at a non-
perpendicular angle to the lateral edges.” The examiner has
not pointed to any disclosure in the applied art that teaches
a sheet of mounting material having such a configuration.
For at least the reasons discussed above, we reverse the
obviousness rejection.
III. Conclusion
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection is
reversed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is reversed.
REVERSED
Peter F. Kratz )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Jeffrey T. Smith ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Beverly A. Pawlikowski )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BAP/cam
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007