Appeal 2007-4310
Application 10/950,830
Accordingly, the Examiner's rejections of the remaining claims must also be
REVERSED.
D. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
In the event of further prosecution, we invite the Examiner and Price
to consider the following issues regarding the patentability of claim 1 over
each of Mangum and Hawley; the patentability of the dependent claims,
further in view of the additional references of record, may also need to be
revisited.
Mangum describes embodiments in which the first scrim is covered
with a foamed resin resulting in a sheet having "very small holes extending
through the scrim." (Mangum at 4:17–18.) The second scrim 20 is
described as having open large apertures. (Id. at 21–24.) The combination
appears to have open pores connecting the first major surface to the second
major surface. The first major surface is described as being skid-resistant
(id. at 3:35–36) and the second major surface is described as being textured
(id. at 4:24–26.) Thus, claim 1 may be unpatentable over Mangum. The
more complete coating of the first scrim 12 compared to the second scrim 20
would appear to meet the differential coating requirement of claim 11 and
the differential friction coefficient requirement of claim 13. The principle of
shifting the burden to the Applicant upon a prima facie showing that a prior
art disclosure meets or renders obvious claimed subject matter should be
considered. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (“[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the
products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013