Appeal No. 2002-1749
Application No. 09/395,270
position that the method recited in claim 1 distinguishes over
the method disclosed by Wyman by virtue of performing the steps
in the order written in the claim is not persuasive.
We therefore shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Wyman in view of
SIGA. We shall also sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 2-8 as being unpatentable over Wyman in view
of SIGA since appellant has not separately argued these claims
with any reasonable degree of specificity.
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and adds, among other things,
that the thickness of the backing is approximately 1 mil to
approximately 2 mils. With respect to claim 10, appellant argues
(brief, page 5, lines 20 to 21, that the claimed thickness is not
an obvious variant depending on the application surface. We
agree.
Wyman discloses (column 3, lines 2-4) that the thickness of
the underlay is approximately 1 mm, which is about 20 to 40 times
the claimed thickness of approximately 1 to 2 mils.2 SIGA, the
other reference relied upon in the rejection, is silent as the
thickness of the mesh material used as a carpet underlay. In
21 mm = 39.37 mils.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007