Appeal No. 98-0111
Application No. 08/290,213
is described as “stiff cardboard,” along with fiberboard,
paperboard or plastic material (column 5, lines 10-12), which
indicates that it is substantially rigid.
We therefore will sustain the Section 103 rejection of
independent claim 6 and dependent claims 9 and 11, which are
grouped therewith.
The next rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is that
independent claims 1 and 6, and dependent claims 3, 5 and 12,
are unpatentable over VanHoose in view of Taylor. As was the
case above with regard to Davis, the examiner’s position is
that VanHoose discloses all of the claimed subject matter
except for the feature of the floor being formed of a
plurality of overlapping sections, which is taught by Taylor,
the conclusion being that it would have been obvious to
construct the VanHoose device in that manner. The same
arguments are raised by the appellant, and we find them to
unpersuasive here, also. From our perspective, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
modify the VanHoose cargo area liner by providing overlapping
sections so that vehicle floor areas of different sizes can be
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007