Appeal No. 2006-1819 7
Application No. 10/102,445
and 23 through 31 on appeal. In the final analysis, it is our view that the examiner is using
the hindsight benefit of appellant’s own disclosure to modify the flooring adapter of Glatz in
an attempt to recreate appellant’s claimed invention.
Moreover, even if the flooring adapter of Glatz were to be sized so that the width
dimension between the thick end and the thin end was in the range of at least 30 times the
overall thickness at the thick end and then used for extending under a flooring material as
set forth in the claims on appeal, we do find that a transition support like that claimed by
appellant would be the result. In that regard, it is our view that the thickness variations (E)
and (F) at the thin and thick ends, respectively, seen in Glatz (Fig. 2) would preclude that
member from rendering the junction between the differing height floor materials generally
unnoticeable to persons walking across the flooring material on the tapering section and
also prevent the jostling of wheeled vehicles crossing the flooring material on the tapering
section, as set forth in the claims on appeal.
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions found in Glatz would not
have made the subject matter as a whole of independent claims 12, 20, 23 and 31 on
appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention, we
must refuse to sustain the examiner’s rejection of those claims, and of claims 13 through
19, and 24 through 30 dependent therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007