Appeal 2006-2796
Application 09/230,439
1 appears to be about 6.9x1010 N/m2.3 The Examiner argues that “[t]he modulus of
2 elasticity for various synthetic resins is on the order serving to satisfy the
3 relationship presented within the language of claim 18” (Answer 8). Nelson’s
4 synthetic resin is rigid (col. 4, ll. 6-7), whereas the Appellant’s working member is
5 resilient. The Examiner has not provided evidence that a rigid synthetic resin
6 necessarily has a modulus of elasticity less than 1011 N/m2. Also, the Examiner has
7 not explained why there is reason to believe that Nelson’s aluminum or rigid
8 synthetic base member has the E/H ratio required by the Appellant’s claims.
9 The Examiner argues alternatively that Nelson’s flexible tread member (3),
10 serrated ribs (31) and flaps (33) correspond to the Appellant’s working member
11 (Answer 4). That is incorrect because those parts are not adapted to have
12 horizontal and vertical facing material applied thereon. Instead, the flexible tread
13 member’s flaps (30) fit over Nelson’s laminate flooring (6) (col. 2, ll. 63-64;
14 figs. 4, 5) which corresponds to the Appellant’s facing material.
15 The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
16 anticipation of the Appellant’s claimed invention by Nelson.
17 Rejection over Aidan
18 Aidan discloses a tile edging trim strip comprising a body (1) with a plate-
19 like anchorage portion (2) and an integral edge portion (3) having a first abutment
20 part (4) at its outer end and a rigid extension (29) perpendicular to the plate-like
21 anchorage portion (col. 4, ll. 4-14; col. 5, ll. 46-48; fig. 3). The body is extruded
22 from semi-rigid polyvinyl chloride (col. 6, ll. 21-22).
3See http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_773.html;3
http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/ph/p/id/250.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013