Appeal 2007-4310
Application 10/950,830
burden of showing that they are not.”); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195
USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Hawley, at column 2, line 50, through column 3, line 4, describes a
slip-resistant pad 14 that is "conventional and commercially available"
(Hawley at 2:67-3:1). The pad 14 is said to be noncontinuous rubber or
plastic material foamed onto a loosely woven scrim in such a way that the
apertures are not filled (id. at 2:55-65). Preferred thicknesses are disclosed
at column 3, lines 1–4. Again, this disclosure appears to have anticipate
claim 1 and many of the dependent claims.
Claim 19 appears to invert, in the final clause, the recitations of the
"second major surface" and the "first major surface," when it requires that
the foamed resin be thicker on a side of the scrim adjacent the second major
surface, compared to the first major surface. The "first major surface" is
previously defined as the skid-resistant surface, which appears to have the
thicker foamed resin.
E. CONCLUSION
On consideration of the record and for the reasons given, it is:
ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1, 5, 11, 13, and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) in view of Mangum is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 12, 14, and
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Mangum is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 2–4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Magnum and
Jupina is REVERSED;
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013