Appeal No. 2006-1038
Application No. 10/138,994
All of the appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Irwin in view of
Holeschovsky.1
We refer to the Brief and Reply Brief and to the Answer for
a thorough discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellant and by the examiner concerning the above-noted
rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain this
rejection.
Irwin discloses a carpet comprising tufts, back stitches,
first backing layer, second backing layer and an adhesive or back
coating (e.g., see Figures 1-9 and particularly Figures 5 and 6
as well as the written disclosure relating thereto). The
adhesive or back coating may be a polyurethane having each of the
appealed claim 1 components except for the non-Newtonian
thickener (e.g., see the paragraph bridging columns 10 and 11).
1No individual claims have been separately argued by the
appellant with any reasonable specificity in accordance with
37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(ix) (September 13, 2004). Therefore, in
assessing the merits of the rejection advanced by the examiner,
we will focus on claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal,
with which the remaining dependent claims will stand or fall.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007