Appeal 2007-1124
Application 10/349,639
2. Claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith;
3. Claims 24-30, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Smith in view of Ehrhart; and
3. Claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith in
view of Ehrhart and further in view of Hodakowski.
ISSUES
I. The Examiner contends that Smith anticipates the invention
as claimed in claims 34 and 36-38. Appellant contends that
Smith fails to disclose tile edges having a mechanically
embossed texture. The issue for us to decide is: Has the
Examiner shown that Smith, either expressly or inherently,
discloses the feature of mechanically embossed texture on
the tile edges?
II. The Examiner contends that Appellant’s claimed surface
covering would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention in view of the combined
teachings of Smith and Ehrhart. Appellant contends that the
Examiner’s proposed combination fails to teach or suggest
the claimed feature of the tile edges having a mechanically
embossed texture. The issue before us is: Has the Examiner
shown that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the
feature of mechanically embossed texture to the edges of tile
based on the combined teachings of Smith and Ehrhart?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013