Appeal 2006-3021
Application 09/782,337
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13-16, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 29-31 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Akao in view of Foster
(Answer 3). Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration
of Appellants’ arguments, we AFFIRM the rejection on appeal essentially
for the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Akao discloses laminated sheets for use as
“floor materials” which have good cushioning characteristics (Answer 3).
The Examiner further finds that Akao discloses that the sheets comprise two
thermoplastic resin film layers bonded via an adhesive layer to a central
foam layer, where the resin films, the foam layer, and the adhesive layer
may all be formed from polyethylene (id.). The Examiner recognizes that
Akao does not teach the limitation required by claim 1 on appeal that “at
least one edge of the second film extends beyond a corresponding edge of
the foam sheet” (id.). Therefore the Examiner applies Foster, which is
directed to a laminate film/foam flooring composite of low density
polyethylene film adhered to a low density polyethylene foam by means of a
very thin layer of low density polyethylene, for the teaching of installing the
laminate so that the edge of one strip overlies the extended portion of the
polyethylene film layer of an adjacent strip to yield a more efficient
installation at reduced labor costs (id.). From these findings, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
flooring composite art at the time of the invention to modify the laminated
sheets of Akao by extending the edge of the second resin film beyond the
corresponding edge of the foam sheet, as taught by Foster, in order to
achieve more efficient installation and reduced labor costs (Answer 3-4).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007