Appeal 2007-4310
Application 10/950,830
fibers. Furthermore, the Examiner has not relied on the other references for
disclosure relating to the coverage of the scrim. We conclude that the
rejection of Claim 18 over the combined teachings of Mangum, Sobonya,
and Jupina should be and is REVERSED.
We return to claim 15. As Price points out (Br. at 12), claim 1
requires that the shelf liner be skid-resistant. Price argues that the
combination of two scrims 20 "would not yield a liner in which one surface
had visible scrim fibers and the other a skid resistant surface as required in
claim 1." (Br. at 14.)
We find the Examiner's assertion that the coated scrim 20 has skid-
resistant properties "because the texture is provided on its top surface"
(FF 21; Answer at 4) unpersuasive. The Examiner has not explained why
what Mangum describes at the top surface would affect the characteristics of
the bottom surface. Indeed, the skid resistant pads described by Mangum
appear to derive their skid-resistant characteristics from a foamed-resin
coated scrim 12 that "substantially forms a non-porous sheet, or
alternatively, has very small holes extending through the scrim." (FF 17;
Mangum at 4:16–18.) The partially coated scrim 20 is "welded" to the
coated scrim 12, yielding the desired combination of skid-resistance, top-
texture, and cushioning. (FF 18; Mangum at 4:23–25.)
Accordingly, we are constrained to REVERSE the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 under § 102 in view of Mangum.
The remaining claims are dependent on claim 1. The Examiner did
not rely on the other references to remedy the deficiencies noted supra.
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013