Appeal 2006-2159
Application 09/862,234
Brief, as well as those reasons set forth below. We AFFIRM the rejections
of claims 41-43, 46, 47, 49 and 50 for reasons set forth below. Accordingly,
the decision of the Examiner is AFFIRMED-IN-PART.
OPINION
A. The Rejection over Simpson in view of Sartor
The Examiner finds that Simpson discloses a method of forming a
multilayer sheet for use as a floor covering comprising applying onto a
moving glass fiber web multiple curable layers of polyolefin resins, back-
coat formulations, a wear layer, and a clear coating formulation, either by
melt calendering, viscous blank calendering, or by simultaneously co-
extruding multiple layers of curable polyolefin layers in a molten state in a
single pass using a sheet die block (Answer 3). The Examiner also finds that
Simpson teaches further heating steps to foam the foamable layers and
crosslink the polyolefin resins, as well as applying a polish or lacquer type
finish as the top layer (Answer 3-4). The Examiner further finds that
Simpson teaches use of a non-volatile liquid plasticizer such as liquid
paraffin to lower the temperature needed to obtain the viscosity required for
good processing. The Examiner finds that Simpson “[i]n general” teaches
holding the fluid system at a temperature of 80 to 120ºC. to retain the
required fluidity for the fabrication of the final product form (Answer 4).
The Examiner recognizes that, inter alia, Simpson fails to teach that
the polymer and liquid monomer plasticizer system is a liquid at room
temperature or that the system could be simultaneously extruded onto a
substrate using a multi-cavity slot die coater at room temperature (Answer 4-
5). To remedy this deficiency in Simpson, the Examiner reasons that the
resin and dodecene liquid plasticizer taught by Simpson would be fluid at
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007