Appeal No. 2000-1607 Page 4
Application No. 09/084,486
that the polyolefin is an “elastomer” is inherent in Reynolds in that the polyolefin disclosed
is “imitative of grass,” and therefore has elastomeric properties such as flexibility and
spring (Answer, page 6).
It is axiomatic that anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of
1
the claimed invention. In our view, such is not the case here, and therefore the rejection
cannot be sustained. Our reasoning for arriving at this conclusion follows.
Claim 1 requires that the cat litter mat have “flexible, paw-engaging projections
formed of thermoplastic polyolefin elastomer.” The teaching of using a polyolefin
elastomer for an upstanding element of a mat simply is not present in Reynolds. This
reference is directed to a turf simulating surface for a golf practice tee, and discloses a
“mat” comprising a first component that simulates two layers of natural soil and a second
component supported by the first that simulates strands of grass. Reynolds describes the
“pile layer,” or grass (109), from which the golf ball is hit as being made of a polymer,
“preferably nylon,” that simulates the springiness of grass while being able to withstand the
heat generated by the friction of the golf club passing through the layer, which can cause
deterioration of the “grass” fiber. It is pointed out that polypropylene, for example, is twice
as easily decomposed as nylon, and softens over time. See column 10, line 56 et seq.
1See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007