Appeal No. 1999-0822 7
Application No. 08/732,866
matrix of thermoplastic. We further conclude that the thin polypropylene copolymer film
corresponds to the layer of thermoplastic adhesive of the claimed subject matter. Finally,
we conclude that the polypropylene carpet falls within the scope of a plurality of tufts in a
carrier layer. In this respect we agree with and adopt the finding of the examiner that
tufted carpets are conventional and well known in the art. See Answer, page 4.
Significantly, the appellant has not challenged the examiner’s finding.
As to the flexibility of the articles prepared by Bistak, we find that patentee
discloses varying degrees of flexibility in the articles prepared in the examples. We find
that the article of Example 3 is more flexible than that of Example 1. See Example 3.
We further find that the article prepared in Example 6 likewise has greater flexibility than
that of Example 1. See Example 6. We conclude therefrom that Bistak likewise contains
embodiments directed to sheets having varying degrees of flexibility. Accordingly, we
find little distinction between the flexibility of Bistak and that of the claimed subject
matter. Our position is further supported by the fact that Examples 1 through 4 and 6
of Bistak utilize crosslinked EPDM rubber. Similarly, the specification discloses that the
vulcanized thermoplastic elastomer, “is preferably an EPDM based olefinic thermoplastic
vulcanized elastomer.” See specification, page 8, lines 17-18 and page 8, lines 1-2.
We note that a substantial portion of the Answer and appellant’s argument in the
Brief is directed to the “omission of the cellulose component.” See Brief, pages 7 and 8
and Answer, Page 4 and 5. We find however, that the claimed subject matter contains
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007