Appeal 2007-0514
Application 10/394,641
Reese, Jr. describes affixing top 18 and bottom 24 surface plates to a
core mat 12 to improve the load carrying properties of the mat (col. 1, ll. 6-
10; col. 3, ll. 37-38 and 43-44; fig. 1). The top plate is made to withstand
greater compressive forces, while the bottom plate provides enhanced
tensility (col. 2, ll. 1-4).
B. The anticipation rejection of claims 1-3 over Seaux
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Appellant argues that
Seaux fails to describe "overlapping sloping lips" of claim 1 (i.e., claim 1
requires "along at least one side and one end of said mats, the perimeter of
said mats being sloped upward from the bottom of said mats to form a upper
lip" and "at least one opposite side and opposite end of said mats is sloped
downward from top of said mats to form a lower lip") (Brief, p. 6, para. 2).
Appellant contends that the upper and lower peripheral extensions of Seaux
(25 and 26) are described as planar, not sloped, and that the "chamfered"
peripheral edges (27 and 28) of the upper and lower half-pieces of the mat
are not a peripheral extension or lip (Brief, p. 6, para. 2). Appellant also
maintains that Seaux does not describe the chamfered peripheral edges as
forming part of the peripheral extension (Brief, p. 7, para. 3). The Examiner,
however, contends that the claimed "sloping lips" does read on the
chamfered (sloped) peripheral extension (lip) of Seaux because Appellant
"did not claim that the upper and lower lips consist of just slopes but that the
slopes merely form upper and lower lips giving room for the extended back
part of the lip to also be considered as the upper and lower lips" (Answer, p.
7, para. 1).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013