Appeal 2007-0514
Application 10/394,641
C. The obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 14 over Seaux in
view of Reese, Jr.
Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness not only requires some
suggestion or motivation to combine the reference teachings and a
reasonable expectation of success, but also the prior art must teach or
suggest all the claim limitations. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20
USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). According to the Examiner, the only
difference between the claimed invention and Seaux is that Seaux fails to
disclose a mat having top and bottom surface plates attached thereto
(Answer, p. 5, para. 3). However, claim 14, like claim 2, requires "a
composite integral fit joint, a snap fit joint or an integral design feature joint
in which the joint is held together by material interference with the
contacting surfaces of the overlapping lips." The Examiner has failed to
establish that Seaux describes a mat having an integral design feature joint
as claimed for the reasons given above explaining why Seaux does not
anticipate claim 2. The Examiner does not allege, and we do not find, where
Reese, Jr. addresses this deficiency in Seaux. Accordingly, we reverse the
decision of the Examiner to reject claim 14 as unpatentable under § 103(a)
over Seaux in view of Reese, Jr. It is not necessary to our decision to
address Appellant's argument that "the Examiner failed to address the
language of Claim 14 that the lip slopes from the riser to the mat's edge"
(Brief, p. 10, para. 3).
Claim 4 is dependent upon claim 1 are requires the mat to be
manufactured from one piece molded construction and have top and bottom
surface plates affixed thereto by attachment means. The Examiner argues
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
Appellant's invention was made to affix top and lower surface plates to the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013