Ex Parte Rogers - Page 4

                Appeal 2007-0514                                                                             
                Application 10/394,641                                                                       
                            between the adjoining lips and providing a                                       
                            generally continuous flat upper and lower mat                                    
                            surface.                                                                         
                                   said upper and lower lips have openings at                                
                            spaced intervals along said lips to allow for                                    
                            alignment of said openings in said overlapping                                   
                            mats to receive a captive locking pin.                                           
                      We make reference to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Brief," filed                      
                March 20, 2006) and to the Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed June 6,                       
                2006).                                                                                       
                      The Examiner relies on the following references in her rejection:                      
                      Steaux  US 6,511,257  Jan. 28, 2003                                                    
                                                                   (filed 31 May 2000)                       
                      Reese, Jr.  US 5,667,866  Sep. 16, 1997                                                
                      Appellant's application was filed on March 21, 2003 and claims                         
                priority to provisional application 60/366,729, filed March 22, 2002.  Steaux                
                and Reese, Jr. qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 102(b),                     
                respectively.                                                                                
                II. ISSUES                                                                                   
                      Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by                   
                Steaux.  Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over                        
                Steaux in view of Reese, Jr.                                                                 
                III. GROUPING OF CLAIMS                                                                      
                      Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments for                       
                claims 3 and 4, both of which depend from claim 1.  Therefore, we decide                     
                this appeal on the basis of claims 1, 2, 4 and 14.  37 CFR § 41.37(b)(viii).                 
                IV. DISCUSSION                                                                               
                      A. The prior art                                                                       


                                                     4                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013