Appeal 2006-3149
Application 09/864,478
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Porter EP 0,048,986 Jul. 4, 1982
Higgins (‘857) US 4,522,857 Jun. 11, 1985
Turner EP 0,309,816 May 4, 1989
Higgins (‘968) US 5,540,968 Jul. 30, 1996
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a carpet tile comprising a
primary carpet and a cushion layer of polyurethane foam. The primary
carpet has a face weight of less than or equal to about 15 oz/yd2, and the
polyurethane foam has a weight of about 2.72 - 8.24 oz/yd2 and a density
less than about 10 lbs./ft.3.
Appealed claims 12, 14-16, 22, 23, 26, and 28-30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Higgins ‘857 and Higgins
‘968 in view of Porter and Turner.
Appellants set forth separate arguments for only claims 28 and 29.
Accordingly, claims 12, 14-16, 22, 23, 26, and 30 stand or fall together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the
Examiner’s reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as her
cogent and thorough disposition of the arguments raised by Appellants.
Accordingly, we will adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as our own in
sustaining the rejection of record, and we add the following for emphasis
only.
There is no dispute that both Higgins patents, having the same
assignee as Appellants, disclose a carpet tile comprising a primary carpet
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013