Appeal No. 2000-1383 Page 3
Application No. 08/817,391
THE REJECTION
Claims 3, 4, and 6-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Munk in view of Lindgren. See pages 4-7 for the Examiners exposition of the grounds of
rejection. We reverse substantially for the reasons presented by Appellants in their Brief and
Reply Brief and add the following primarily for emphasis.
OPINION
Claim 7, the only independent claim, is directed to a process in which a particular
laminate is glued onto the upper and long sides of a carrier having a rectangular cross-section
with at least two rounded-off edges. The laminated coated carrier is then machined into a floor
profile of a specific shape as shown in Figure 2 (dilation profile), Figure 3 (finishing profile) or
Figure 4 (transition profile).
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In order to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that each and every
limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the combination of prior art references or
would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In the present case, the Examiner
fails to provide any fact finding with regard to a process in which a laminate is glued to the sides
as well as the top of a rectangular carrier. In Munk, the laminate is hot pressed onto the top and a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007