Appeal No. 2005-0058 Page 3
Application No. 09/821,802
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 19) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 18) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims2, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 13 as being anticipated
by Moriau is based upon the embodiment of Moriau’s Figures 5-7. In order to meet the
limitations of claim 13, for example, the top edge of the tongue being provided with a
projecting locking lip, a recess being formed in a lower portion of the top groove cheek
and the bottom groove cheek being shorter than the top groove cheek, Moriau’s floor
panel must be flipped upside-down relative to the orientation shown in Figures 5-7. In
other words, the underside 7 must be considered to be the “upper decorative surface”
recited in claim 13 and the lower side 35 of the tongue 31 must be considered to be the
top edge of the tongue.
2 Upon return of this application to the jurisdiction of the primary examiner, the examiner may wish
to consider whether appellants’ original application provides written description support, in compliance with
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for a parquet board comprising “an upper decorative surface atop a core”
as recited in claim 13. This limitation was added to claim 13 in Paper No. 12.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007