Appeal No. 96-3822
Application 08/143,384
Claim 1-13, 21, 22, 24, 26 and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over either Hensel `876 or Hensel
`112 in view of Lewicki and applicants’ admissions. We will not
sustain this rejection.
As noted by the examiner and disclosed in the background
section of appellants’ specification, the Hensel references
disclose the use of an inorganic wear layer on floor covering
composites. Lewicki teaches the embossing of a floor material
after the application of a wear layer. The examiner urges that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
emboss the non-particulate inorganic wear layer disclosed by
Hensel in view of the teaching of post coating embossing by
Lewicki “with the expectation of cracking and some loss of
function of the wear layer by applicants’ admissions.”
We disagree with the examiner’s characterization of the
alleged admission and with the examiner’s conclusion that the
claimed invention would have been obvious. It is well settled
that, in order to support a conclusion of obviousness, it must be
shown that the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art that the process be carried out and “ would have
a reasonable likelihood of success ” (emphasis added). In re Dow
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007