Appeal No. 1999-1813 Page 4
Application No. 08/801,010
skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to combine reference
teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some
teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure.
See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d
1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
The appellant’s invention is directed to a transition support for supporting flooring
extending over adjacent floors of different heights. The invention comprises an elongate
wedge having a relatively thick end with an upper portion, a lower portion, and a thickness
between the upper and lower portion, the thickness being generally equal to the difference
in heights between the two floor areas, a relatively thin end opposite the thick end and
parallel to the thick end, and a tapering section interconnecting the upper portion of the
thick end and the thin end. Bell discloses a floor mat having a nosing strip at one edge that
tapers from the upper surface of the mat to the floor upon which the mat is placed. The
function of the nosing strip is not explained, nor are examples of its dimensions provided,
although it would appear from the drawings that the distance between the thick end and the
thin end is about three times the height of the thick end. It is the examiner’s view that all of
the subject matter recited in claim 1 is disclosed by Bell, except for the limitation “the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007