Appeal No. 2002-2254 Page 9
Application No. 09/456,046
Based on our analysis and review of Sandaj and claim 6, it is our opinion that
there are at least two differences.3 The first difference is that the base mat has a
circular shape. The second difference is a single circular grease barrier permanently
fastened around a perimeter of the base mat to form a grease accumulation area in a
center of the apparatus. While the examiner may be correct that the first difference
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary
skill in the art since Sandaj teaches that the shape of the perimeter of the mat may be
any desired shape, the examiner has not determined that the second difference would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in
the art. Thus, the examiner has not determined that the subject mater of claim 6 would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in
the art. Moreover, it is our opinion that the teachings of Sandaj alone would not have
made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the
art to have modified Sandaj's mat to have both a base mat with a circular shape and a
single circular grease barrier permanently fastened around a perimeter of the base mat
to form a grease accumulation area in a center of the apparatus. In that regard, we
note that Sandaj's rectangular mat does not have a single rectangular grease barrier
3 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007