Appeal No. 2004-1717
Application No. 09/647,129
surfaces”. Id. Thus, on this record, we concur with the
appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
looked to the method of making floor scouring materials taught in
Hoover to improve the method of making decorative laminates
described in Michl. The examiner simply has not proffered
sufficient evidence that the spray coating technique and flow-
promoting agent useful for forming floor scouring materials
(defined by extremely open structure having an extremely high
void volume) are equally useful for forming the decorative
laminate of the type described in Michl. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(“the examiner
bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability”).
In view of the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse the
examiner’s Section 103 rejections.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007