Appeal No. 96-3723
Application 08/136,939
claim 1 of Martin raises an issue of double patenting, a new
ground of rejection is required.
III.
The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103 all rely
on Witman as the primary reference. The rejection is untenable.
As noted by appellants, Witman does not teach or suggest a
tension floor structure. To the contrary, Witman teaches a
"dimensionally stable plastic surface covering" which resists
stretch. The Witman floor covering is the antithesis of the
claimed tension floor covering. Since we are in substantial
agreement with appellants' position with respect to the
rejections over Witman, we adopt that position as our own.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007