Appeal 2007-0514
Application 10/394,641
between the adjoining lips and providing a
generally continuous flat upper and lower mat
surface.
said upper and lower lips have openings at
spaced intervals along said lips to allow for
alignment of said openings in said overlapping
mats to receive a captive locking pin.
We make reference to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Brief," filed
March 20, 2006) and to the Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed June 6,
2006).
The Examiner relies on the following references in her rejection:
Steaux US 6,511,257 Jan. 28, 2003
(filed 31 May 2000)
Reese, Jr. US 5,667,866 Sep. 16, 1997
Appellant's application was filed on March 21, 2003 and claims
priority to provisional application 60/366,729, filed March 22, 2002. Steaux
and Reese, Jr. qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 102(b),
respectively.
II. ISSUES
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Steaux. Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Steaux in view of Reese, Jr.
III. GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments for
claims 3 and 4, both of which depend from claim 1. Therefore, we decide
this appeal on the basis of claims 1, 2, 4 and 14. 37 CFR § 41.37(b)(viii).
IV. DISCUSSION
A. The prior art
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013