Appeal No. 96-3822
Application 08/143,384
Andrew H. Metz, Administrative Patent Judge , Concurring.
While I agree with the conclusion of the majority that
Hallman et al.'s claims here on appeal are not unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103, my reasons for so-concluding are distinct from
the reasons expressed by the majority. Accordingly, I write
separately.
As correctly noted by the majority, the patentability of
Hallman et al.'s claims on appeal stand or fall with the
patentability of claim 1. Claim 1 embraces a surface covering
comprising a substrate and a non-particulate inorganic wear
layer. Claim 1 also requires that the wear layer be deposited by
a particular technique and that the composite is embossed such
that the wear layer is embossed and has "a plurality of cracks on
the exposed surface, a majority of the cracks forming a non-
random pattern."
The Hensel references disclose that in a surface covering
composite comprising a substrate and a non-particulate inorganic
wear layer the substrate layer may be embossed before applying
the ceramic film (wear layer). There is no disclosure or
suggestion of embossing the wear layer which is a thin hard film
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007