Appeal No. 2001-1666
Application 08/818,333
for installation at the site (page 1, lines 14-28), and Cable
makes tiles fastened to a grouting lattice for shipment from a
factory (col. 2, lines 52-61) and teaches that prior art
manufacturing methods made tiles glued to paper for shipment from
a factory (col. 1, lines 39-45). The examiner does not rely upon
any prior art which discloses a benefit of using a matrix at the
site of installation.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the appellant’s claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-4, 21, 26
and 27 over the appellant’s admitted prior art in view of
Du Fresne and Worth, claim 19 over the appellant’s admitted prior
art in view of Du Fresne, Worth and Kingston, Knight or Cable,
claims 26 and 27 over the appellant’s admitted prior art in view
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007