Appeal No. 96-3723
Application 08/136,939
The subject matter relates to resilient tension floor
structures. Claims 1 and 2, the only independent claims, are
illustrative of the appealed claims and read as follows:
1. A floor covering comprising a resilient tension floor
structure including an upper foamed thermoplastic layer, a lower
foamed thermoplastic layer, and an unfoamed plastic inner layer
disposed between the upper and the lower foamed thermoplastic
layers, the floor covering having a structural stability such
that the floor covering is capable of shrinking at least 0.1%,
the upper foamed thermoplastic layer being foamed throughout.
2. A floor covering comprising a resilient tension floor
structure including an upper foamed thermoplastic layer, a lower
foamed thermoplastic layer, and an unfoamed thermoplastic inner
layer disposed between the upper and the lower foamed
thermoplastic layers, the upper foamed thermoplastic layer being
foamed throughout.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Witman et al. (Witman) 3,870,591 Mar. 11, 1975
Herr, Jr. et al. (Herr) 4,699,820 Oct. 13, 1987
Wang et al. (Wang) 4,863,782 Sep. 5, 1989
Martin et al. (Martin) 5,256,465 Oct. 26, 1993
Claims 1 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. Claims 10-12 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims
2-4 of Martin. Claims 1-4, 10-12 and 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Witman. Claim 5 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Witman in
view of Herr. Claims 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007