Appeal No. 2000-2147
Application No. 08/835,709
(carpeting) with said raceway.” Appellant argues inter alia
(brief, pages 7 and 8; reply brief, pages 2 and 3) that Batty
fails to disclose a fastener and a housing cooperating “to
integrate a floor cover with said raceway.”
Although we agree with the examiner that the plastic strip
19 broadly functions as a fastener for the underlying strips, we
do not agree with the examiner that the fastener 19 and the
housing 11 cooperate to “integrate” a floor cover with the
raceway. At most, the fastener 19 and the housing 11 in Batty
only cooperate to allow the carpet to be placed over them
(Abstract; column 2, lines 31 and 55). Thus, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 and 7 through 12 is reversed
because Batty does not disclose every limitation of the claimed
invention. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047,
34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 3378
(1995).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 4 and 6 is
reversed because the teachings of Wegmann and Storck do not cure
the noted shortcoming in the teachings of Batty.
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claims 13 through
15 and 17 through 22, we agree with the examiner’s findings
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007