Appeal No. 2003-0992
Application 09/934,026
a tray, platform, or carrier for supporting, storing, and transporting various types of goods and
articles.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded of no error in the rejection of claims 2, 6 and
11 under 35 U.S.C.§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Dresen and
Kuhns .
Claim 7 recites that the conductive material includes particles and the particles are
dispersed throughout the plastic material. Claim 12 recites that the conductive material includes
particles and the particles are dispersed throughout the non-conductive material. The examiner’s
position is that it would have been obvious to have more than one of Kuhns’ conductive spike.
The problem, however, is that having more than one conductive spike does not meet the
requirement of conductive particles dispersed throughout the non-conductive material. The
particles in the spikes of Kuhns are confined to discrete locations where the spikes are placed. In
the case of claim 7, the particles are not dispersed throughout the plastic material from which the
bed liner is fabricated. In the case of claim 12, the particles are not dispersed throughout the non-
conductive portion of the mixture from which the bed liner is fabricated.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites that the bed liner comprises two layers
and “said material comprises one of said two layers and another of said two layers comprises
non-conductive plastic.” It appears to us that the reference “said material” has multiple and
different antecedent basis and thus this claim is indefinite. However, it is evident that both the
examiner and the appellant has assumed that the reference refers to the conductive material.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007