Appeal No. 2000-1607 Page 3
Application No. 09/084,486
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The problem to which the appellants’ invention is directed is dislodging cat litter
from the paws of a cat after it exits a litter box in order the prevent the litter from being
deposited on the floor outside of the box. The appellants acknowledge that mats or pads
on which a cat steps when exiting the litter box are known in the art, however, they assert
that these mats comprise rigid upstanding spike-like projections that jab at the cat’s
sensitive paws, causing it to shy away from the litter box altogether. According to the
appellants, their mat is more amenable to the liking of the animal using it. As manifested
in claim 1, the sole independent claim, the invention comprises:
A cat litter mat having flexible, paw-engaging projections formed of
thermoplastic polyolefin elastomer.
It is the examiner’s view that all of the subject matter recited in this claim is
disclosed or taught by Reynolds, and therefore this reference anticipates the claim
(Answer, page 3). In response to the appellants’ arguments, it is the examiner’s position
that the statement in the preamble that the claim is directed to “[a] cat litter mat” is merely
an intended use that is not entitled to be given patentable weight, and that the limitation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007