Appeal 2006-3149
Application 09/864,478
edge ravel, increased roller friction, and the like” (Br. 6, second para.). Still
further, Appellants maintain that:
One of skill in the cushion back carpet tile art would not reduce
the face weight or the cushion weight or density below known
acceptable levels and would especially not reduce both the face
weight and the cushion weight or density and expect to produce
a performing, durable, stable, tile product.
(Br. 7, first para.).
The flaw in Appellants’ argument is that they have not presented one
shred of evidence which demonstrates that their carpet tile, having a face
weight within the claimed range and a lower weight and density for the
polyurethane foam, achieves an unexpected result, for example, a less
expensive carpet tile that performs at least comparably to carpet tiles having
a polyurethane foam with a higher weight and density. While Appellants
maintain they have proceeded contrary to the prior art, we must agree with
the Examiner that it is not enough to simply proceed accordingly, but to
demonstrate that an unexpected result is achieved. Certainly, it is not
invention to ignore the teachings of the prior art and suffer the disadvantages
articulated in the prior art. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470,
43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants’ separate arguments for claims 28 and 29 have been
adequately addressed by the Examiner, and we will not further burden the
record with redundant commentary.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013