Appeal No. 2005-2175
Application 10/104,383
a core comprising at least one thermoplastic material, wherein said core has a top surface,
a bottom surface, and opposing sides;
a thermoplastic layer located on said top surface of said core wherein said layer
comprises at least one thermoplastic material with at least one pigmented compound; and
wherein the core has a groove located on at least two opposing sides of said core, and
wherein no side of the core has a male edge.
68. A thermoplastic flooring plank comprising:
a core comprising at least one thermoplastic material, wherein said core has a top surface,
a bottom surface, and opposing sides, and wherein the core is made by extrusion; and
a thermoplastic layer located on said top surface of said core wherein said layer
comprises at least one thermoplastic material with at least one pigmented compound, and
wherein the layer is made by extrusion on the top surface of said core simultaneous with or
subsequent to extrusion of the core.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Kraayenhof 4,226,064 Oct. 7, 1980
Haid 4,599,841 Jul. 15, 1986
Pollock 5,613,339 Mar. 25, 1997
Davis 5,647,184 Jul. 15, 1997
Pitman et al. (Pitman) 5,724,909 Mar. 10, 1998
Roesch et al. (Roesch) 6,004,417 Dec.
21, 1999
(filed Jan. 20, 1998)
Nelson 6,324,809 Dec. 4, 2001
(filed Nov. 25, 1997)
The examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
claims 35, 47 through 51, 53 and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pollock in view of Pitman (answer, page 6);
claims 54, 63 and 64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollock
in view of Pitman as applied to claims 35, 47 through 51, 53 and 58, and further in view of Davis
(answer, page 7);
claims 52, 55, 59, 61, 68 and 69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Pollock in view of Pitman as applied to claims 35, 47 through 51, 53 and 58, and further in
view of Nelson (answer, pages 7-8);
claim 57 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollock in view of
Pitman as applied to claims 35, 47 through 51, 53 and 58, further in view of Nelson and further
in view of Kraayenhof (answer, page 9);
claim 62 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pollock in view of
Pitman as applied to claims 35, 47 through 51, 53 and 58, further in view of Nelson and further
in view of Roesch (answer, pages 9-10);
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007