Appeal 2007-0705
Application 10/431,127
a snap fastener, such as in the frame of Reibold; an adhesive, such as used
by Artwick; a screw fastener; a velcro hook and loop fastener; and a clip
fastener (id. 4 and 7-8, citing Vaghi, col. 15, l. 62, to col. 16, ll. 45). The
Examiner contends Gillespie discloses a flexible magnetic strip with
magnetic particles as an alternative fastener to hook and loop fasteners and
adhesive material for holding a cover layer on a floor covering substrate
which can be easily installed and removed (id. 4-5 and 8, citing Gillespie,
Abstract, col. 3, ll. 1-50, and 431A-B of Fig. 1). The Examiner contends
Vela discloses flexible magnetic substrates removably affixed to various
substrates which are easily installed and removed (id. 5 and 9, citing Vela,
Abstract and ¶ 0019).
The Examiner determines it would have been prima facie obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a magnetic strip fastener for
Reibold’s frame and Artwick’s adhesive to provide an easily removable bath
scale mat in view of the teachings of Vaghi, Gillespie and Vela (Answer 5-
6). In this respect, the Examiner contends the references evince “the general
solution of using magnets to provide for removable elements in the scale art
and removable cover layers in the related protective floor surface covering
layers was known to one of ordinrary skill in the art” (id. 8). Thus, the
Examiner concludes one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
the references which would have led to the claimed invention, citing In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Answer
6-9).
Appellants contend each of Reibold and Artwick have a particular
manner in which the mat is attached to the scales and do not provide
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013