Appeal 2007-1124
Application 10/349,639
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to “provide
Smith et al. with that [sic] one half of the even number of edges are routed
and that each of the routed edges are adjacent to one another in order to
interlock the edges together to promote ease of installation (col. 1, line 6-7,
col. 2,, line 7-8) as taught by Ehrhart et al.” Answer 5-6.
Appellant argues that the combined teachings of Smith and Ehrhart
fail to disclose or suggest the claimed feature of a mechanically embossed
texture on the tile edges. Br. 12. The Examiner again relies on Smith for a
disclosure of this feature. The Examiner further maintains that Ehrhart’s
flexible grout material necessarily has the appearance of grout. Answer 8-9.
We are in agreement with Appellant that the Examiner has not identified a
teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art of providing a mechanically
embossed texture to the edges of a tile, nor has the Examiner explained why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a
tile based on the combined teachings of Smith and Ehrhart.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 24-30, 32, and 33
under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith in view of Ehrhart.
Because the Examiner’s reliance on Hodakowski is limited to its teaching of
an embossed substrate, we reverse the rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith in view of Ehrhart and further in view
of Hodakowski for the reasons stated above in connection with claim 24,
from which claim 31 depends.
REVERSED
cam
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013